BL 2775 
.S684 



— — 



: ,4 






r w 







^^ 


















"fc. 



<** *VQ 






^ 



V 

4? 



























<?* 






>>•*, 



tf 



"* 


















tf 



' tf\, 









.1* 



^ 













° N V $ 













v-o^ 








• ^o^ : 




* «v^?V v^V V^v V ; ^v' 





THE 



DEIST'S REPLY 






TO THE 



ALLEGED SUPERNATURAL EVIDENCES 



OF 



CHRISTIANITY. 



J 



v 







THE 




ZJ 



? ^X^CJ- /j^ 



DEIS T'S REPLY 



TO THE 



^L^ 



ALLEGED SUPERNATURAL EVIDENCES 

, 0F ^ 




tslftUl^ ?rr /f%<£. 



CHRISTIANITY. 



BY LYSANDER SPOONER, 




PRESENTED TO THE CLERGY GENERALLY IN BOSTON. 



BOSTON: 
1836. 



m 



\ , V 









Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1836. by the Author, in the Clerk's Office of the 

District Court of Massachusetts. 



2?SP 



l <X ~e <} % 



-^rrvr, w i 



CONTENTS. 

CHAP. I. The Early Spread of Christianity, - - - - - . - - - 1. 

II. The Nature and Character of Jesus, 7. 

III. The Alleged Miracles of Jesus, 18. 

IV. The Prophecies, - 40. 

V. The Resurrection, - - - 50. 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

CHAPTER I. 

The Early Spread of Christianity. 

There are some believers, who place little confidence in the evidence of the miracles 
said to have been performed by Jesus, who yet say that the establishment of such a religion 
as his, by such means as were employed after his death, is of itself a convincing miracle. 
They say it is incredible that the preachers of a religious system, the most prominent 
doctrine of which was that the Son of God, its founder, was slain, should have met with 
such success, unless God had miraculously aided them. They, in short, say substantially, 
that the very idea of the Son of God and the Saviour of the world being put to death igno- 
miniously and like a criminal, is on the face of it so absurd, and so repugnant to all men's 
notions of what is probable, and of what would consist with the proper character for such a 
being to assume, that unless some supernatural influence had been exerted to aid in gaining 
for it belief, men never would have believed it. 

Now, the absurdity and improbability of this doctrine, in the abstract, being acknowledged, 
let the question be put, whether it be any less absurd or improbable on account of its having 
been believed? If not, then here is an alleged miracle to be inquired into, of a different kind 
from those, on the evidence of which the Bible professes mainly to rest its claims to credit ; 
a sort of incidental miracle, in fact, apparently not at all intended to furnish evidence of the 
truth of the Bible. 

It is a little remarkable that any, professing to believe the Bible, should abandon, as insuf- 
ficient, the evidence which its authors represent to have been expressly designed to convince 
men of its truth, and should thus seize upon an after circumstance of so doubtful a character 
as this. Yet one, who attempts to meet believers on their own grounds, must of necessity 
answer many arguments no more rational than this, or suffer them to believe on ; for very 
slight and flimsy evidence is sufficient to satisfy the minds of such as are both determined to 
believe, and afraid to disbelieve. 

But if it shall appear that this system, absurd and improbable as its main doctrine is, might 
have been propagated without its having, or being aided by, any miraculous power, then the 
argument, against the truth of the doctrine, to be drawn from its absurdity and improbability, 
will be entitled to what would have been its just weight, independent of the system's having 
been believed at all. The only ground, that believers of the present day could then take, on 
this point, would be this, viz, that their astonishment, that men should ever have been so cred- 
ulous as to believe so improbable and absurd a system, is so great, that they themselves will now 
believe it too. 

Let us then inquire into the causes of the success of the Apostles, and see whether they 
were not natural ones. 

One of the most efficient of these causes, was the manner in which they preached. That 
alone was calculated to make a very strong impression upon the minds of such as were too ig- 
norant or simple, (and such the first converts will hereafter appear generally to have been,) 
to judge rationally of the truth of the statements they heard, and the soundness of the reli- 
gious doctrines, that were taught. The manner of all the Apostles must have exhibited a great 
deal of sincerity and zeal, (for they were undoubtedly honest in their faith,) and nothing 
makes so favorable an impression upon the minds of men in general, in favor of those, who 
advocate new doctrines ; nothing inclines them so much to listen willingly to all they have to 
say, as an appearance, on their part, of perfect sincerity and simplicity. 

Another trait in the manner of some of them, particularly of Paul, who appears to have 
been by far the most efficient apostle, was boldness. The exhibition of this quality always 
powerfully affects the imaginations of the weak and ignorant, of whom the early converts 
were evidently composed. 

The question is often asked, how is the boldness and zeal of the Apostles to be accounted 
for, when they knew they had no worldly honors to expect, but, on the contrary, persecution, 
and the contempt of a large portion of the community, wherever they should go? To an- 
swer this question, it is necessary to refer to what was the condition of these men, (with the 
exception of Paul) when they first became the disciples of Jesus. They were obscure, illit- 
erate, simple and superstitious men — men of no importance as citizens either in their own 
own eyes or the eyes of others. They had never looked to worldly honors or promotions; 
but evidently had expected from their youth up, to pass their days in the obscurest paths and 
humblest walks of life. The contempt of those above them had no terrors for such men as 
1 



2 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

these — they had never aspired to be their equals, and they were willing, because, in whatever 
situation they might be, they had always expected, to be despised by them as a matter of 
course, on account of their degraded conditions of mind and fortunes. Still, at the same 
time, to be at the head of even little sects and bands of those, who had once been their equals, 
and to be looked up to by them as guides, was a distinction adapted to excite most powerfully 
the ambition of these men, however much they might be despised by all but their followers. 
The} 7 , by becoming, and being acknowledged as, the teachers of others, acquired an impor- 
tance, of which a few years before they had never dreamed. They owed whatever of worldly 
consequence they possessed entirely to the fact of their being esteemed leaders by their pros- 
elytes. Simple, artless and sincere as these men were, such circumstances were calculated 
to attach them strongly to the cause in which they were engaged, although they might not be 
aware of being so influenced. 

They also attached the greatest importance to a belief in the doctrines, that they preached. 
They esteemed themselves the agents of God, commissioned to save men's souls. They 
looked upon their employment as of the most momentous consequence; and their imagina- 
tions, unbalanced by reason and reflection, were intensely excited by such views of their 
duty. 

But there was another cause, perhaps more powerful than all these together. These sim- 
ple men had been convinced that Jesus was no less a personage than the Son of God. They 
had been honored, as they thought by being made his bosom friends, while he was on the 
earth, and his immediate and most conspicuous agents after his death, for accomplishing a 
design, which to their minds, was the most magnificent that could be conceived. He had, by 
telling them beforehand of the dangers and difficulties, and obloquy they were to encounter 
from those whom they had been taught to consider the enemies of God, and by promises that 
he would always be with them on earth, and that he would extravagantly reward them in 
heaven, if they should persevere and be faithful, wrought them up to a pitch of fanaticism 
calculated to make them look on all the opposition of men as unimportant nothings. "Bless- 
ed are ye," said he, " when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of 
evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your re- 
ward in heaven — for so persecuted they the prophets, which were before you." Can any 
considerations be imagined more likely to render these simple fanatics alike indifferent to 
every thing worldly, whether of hardship or comfort, of prosperity or adversity, of honor or 
shame? Yes. Jesus found pictures, even more inflammatory than these, to operate upon 
their untutored imaginations. He said to them, "ye are they, which have continued with me 
in my temptations, and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my father hath appointed unto me, 
that ye may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom, and sit on Thrones, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke, 22—23 to 80.)* 

It is useless to comment upon the natural effects of such language as this, upon such men 
.as those, to whom it was addressed, and who implicitly believed in the reality of what was 
promised to them. Perhaps no other picture can be imagined, that would have so power- 
fully fired the imagination of these credulous men, as this, offered to them, as it was, by one 
whom they believed to be the Son of God! Tt all looked probable to them, notwithstanding 
its extravagance. They had on earth sat with him at table — why should they not also in 
heaven? They knew too that there were twelve tribes of Israel, and their own number was 
also twelve, apparently selected with reference to the number of tribes to be ruled over. 
The who.'e prospect must have been, to them, a gorgeous reality. The effect was such as 
might have been expected. These men had their minds engrossed by the grandeur of their 
designs, and the grandeur of their promised reward. They had nothing to attach them to 
this world, or to make them regard the esteem of men. One great purpose forever stimula- 
ted and urged them on, and hurried them from place to place, wherever a convert could be 
made. It made them fearless of death, fearless of men, fearless, in fact, of all worldly con- 
sequences. It gave to them vastly more of boldness, zeal and perseverance, than could have 
been easily inspired by other means, in men naturally so timid and spiritless. 

Perhaps it will be said that the writings of the New Testament display talents inconsistent 
with the idea that their authors were intellectually so weak as 1 have represented them. To 
this objection I answer, that from the beginning to the end of the New Testament, there is 
displayed little wit or wisdom for Christians to be proud of. Besides, it should be recollected 
that these writings were not executed until the authors had generally, for several years, 
been engaged in the employment of preachers — an employment adapted to call into exercise, 
and thus to increase, the little powers they originally possessed. And yet the benefit of this 
long course of education has only enabled them, with a few exceptions, to furnish narratives 
and epistles, which, with all the advantage they may be supposed to have derived from the 
translations of such learned men as would be likely to improve upon the style and expres- 
sions of the original, come very near being the most simple, and the most destitute of thought, 
of an}' to be found in the English language. 

If men were but to read the New Testament with the same tone and emphasis, with which 

* This promise was probably understood, at the time it was made, as referring to temporal thrones ; but 
after the departure of Jesus, was applied by the apostles to heavenly ones. 



THE EARLY SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 3 

they do other books, and were to keep out of mind the idea of its being sacred, they would 
be disgusted with the credulity, and the want of intellect, reason and judgment, that is appar- 
ent in it. The imaginations of believers have dressed up and exaggerated the excellence of 
the style and matter of the New Testament generally, in the same manner, in which they 
have the moral instructions of Jesus. They have done this in the same manner, in which we 
may suppose the imaginations of the people of all nations, that have books esteemed sacred, 
gloss over and exaggerate the excellence of their contents. 

The larger portion of the " Acts of the Apostles," separate from the insipidity of the nar- 
rative, contain the most extraordinary exhibitions of lack of judgment and intellectual resource, 
that can easily be found on record. 

To support these assertions, let me ask those, who have been accustomed to look at the 
writings of the New Testament as inspired, to look at them for once as uninspired, (whichis 
the only proper way of regarding them until their inspiration be clearly proved;) to read 
them with no more reverence than they would read any other book ; to read them as being 
what they really purport to be, viz, nothing but narratives, and letters of exhortation and in- 
struction ; let them, in short for once read the books critically, discarding all idea of their 
being sacred, and I have little doubt their opinions will then concur with those here expressed. 

Paul was in some respects distinguishable from the other Apostles. He had some talents, 
.although a muddy intellect, and little judgment. He was violent, precipitate and unreflect- 
ing. He was bigoted, superstitious and dogmatical in his first faith, and little less so in his 
last. He was self-confident, boastful* and dictatorial to a disgusting degree. His forte was 
in teaching doctrines, the utility or reason of which, inasmuch as nobody else has understood, 
he probably did not understand himself. He was also crafty and deceitful, without appear- 
ing to reflect at all upon the character of such conduct; and this fact shows, either that he 
was not a rigid moralist in principle, or that he had very obtuse moral perceptions. His 
readiness to practice deception is exhibited in the following instances. He circumcised Ti- 
motheus to cheat the Jews, as appears by Acts 16—3. " Him would Paul have to go forth 
with him, and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters, 
for they knew all that his father was a Greek." When imprisoned at Phillippi, he falsified, 
and said he was a Roman, (Acts 16—37, 38) to alarm and impose upon those who had im- 
prisoned him, supposing him to be, as he really was, a Jew. (Acts 16 — 20 and 21— Acts 22 
—3.) He repeated the same falsehood afterwards, and declared that he was a Roman "free- 
born," (Acts 22—27,28). This lie appears to have been told because some expedient of the 
kind seemed necessary to extricate him from the trouble he had got himself into.f Moreover he 
was ambitious, and appears to have been disposed in some cases, to turn his labors to a better 
worldly account than the other Apostles.J He was also revengeful, as appears by his second 
Epistle to Timothy 4— 1.4. * £ Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil, the Lord reward 
him according to his works." A wish, in which superstition and a vulgar spirit of revenge 
are more ludicrously combined, was perhaps never recorded, or even expressed. 

That his pretence, before alluded to, of having been caught up into heaven, was all a fabri- 
cation, (instead of an account of a dream, which I suppose christians will think it to have 
been,) is rendered probable by the nature of the story, by the fact that he would not relate 
what he heard there, by his own bad character for veracity, by the necessity he was in of tell- 
ing a marvellous story of some kind, and the circumstance that he thought it best to preface 
it (2d. Cor. 11—31) with the declaration that " the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
which is blessed forevermore, knew that he was not lying." 

Let us now look at the character of the people who became converts. In the first place, 
the people, in general, among whom the Apostles preached, are proved to have been a sim- 
ple, spiritless race of beings, from the facts that they appear to have had no laws, but to have 
been governed entirely by the will of a single deputy of the Roman power, who ruled over 

*See his ridiculous boast (2 Cor. 12—1 to 5) that he was the man who had been caught up into the 
third heaven, fquery— how many heavens are there in all?) and had there heard certain sounds, which 
he declined repeating, on the pretence that it would be unlawful for him to do so. This journey to para- 
dise, therefore, was labor lost, unless the story of it, united with his declarations (2 Cor. 11—5—2 Cor. 12 
—11) that " he was not a whit behind the very chiefest of the Apostles," and his other boastful preten- 
ces, of which the last named chapters are full, served some purpose in gaining him credit among those, 
whose backwardness to regard him, he virtuallv says, (2 Cor. 12—11) " compelled him to Drag a little; 
although, modest man! he would not for the world be thought " to glory of himself, but in his lnfinm- 
ties." (2 Cor. 12—5.; 

t Perhaps some explanation may be given to this declaration of Paul; I here state only what appears on 
the face of the matter. 

$ 2d. Cor. 11—8. " I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." It may well 
be doubted, one would think, whether the last clause of this verse gives his real reason for an act, which 
he seems to admit, in the first clause, to be unjust. 



4 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

them merely for the purpose of sponging from them as large a share, as he could, of their 
property, for the support of the grandeur of the Roman nation. It is probable, too that few 
could read, since but tew in the most enlightened parts of the world could at that time read. 
Printing not being known, the books that then existed must have been in manuscript, and of 
course, must have been few and but little circulated. The people generally having no con- 
cern in the management of the affairs of government, and considering themselves, as they 
really were, the despised subjects or slaves of the Romans, they had no national or individual 
spirit to keep them from sinking into the most contemptible intellectual degradation. It is 
probable that few people are now to be found on the earth more destitute of every thing like 
character, than were the great portion of those, among whom the apostles preached. We see, 
by the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, that they were addicted to the most petty and 
contemptible vices, and the most ludicrous and disgusting superstitions — believing in ghosts, 
and devils, and visions, and dreams, and evil spirits, and sorceries, in prophetesses ! (Acts 21 — 
9) in the power of speaking with tongues, in miracles, in witchcraft, and apparently in all the 
other absurdities that superstition ever gave rise to. They were always agog for something 
new and marvellous in religious matters — indeed they appeared to care for little else. These 
credulous beings were continually imposed upon by men "boasting themselves to be some- 
body," as, for example, one Judas, and one Theudas, who got sects after them, (Acts 5 — 
36 and 37.) Their readiness to believe in every thing, that appeared to them to be miracu- 
lous, cannot be more plainly, or perhaps more ludicrously shown, than it is in Acts 5 — 15 and 
16, where it appears that they brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds, so that 
" at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." It appears also 
by Acts 19 — 12, that sick persons were cured, and evil spirits cast out by the efficacy of the 
handkerchiefs and aprons that had been about the person of Paul! What sort of " evil spir- 
its" were probably cast out by the sight of Paul's handkerchiefs! Or how bad was the "sick- 
ness" that could have been cured by these means? Can any one doubt, that if the handker- 
chiefs of another person had been used, and had been called Paul's, so as to deceive the dis- 
eased person, the same miracles would have been wrought? Or can a man of common sense 
want any further proof that this affair of being possessed of devils, of which there are so 
many stories in the New Testament, and the supposed miraculous cures of diseases, were all 
shams — the mere works of the imaginations of those, who were of the number of the veriest 
simpletons that ever bore the name of men? 

There is another account equally ridiculous, beginning at the 13th verse of Acts 19th, 
which shews what a stupid, superstitious and senseless race of beings some of those were, 
among whom Paul preached. It seems that some vagrant Jews attempted to cast out these evil 
spirits by uttering, over those that were supposed to be possessed of them, these magical 
words, " we adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." It appears that they had adopted 
this method with one, and that "the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I 
know, but who are ye?" and then, instead of coming out of the man, it caused him (as the 
lookers-on supposed) to fly pell-mell at these impostors, and bruise, and beat, and strip them, 
and drive them out of the house. Now any yankee boy, a dozen years old, would see 
through such an affair at once; but when this came to be noised abroad, people looked upon 
it as an awful judgment from God, upon those who had attempted, for their own benefit, 
or without proper authority, to use the name of Jesus as a word of magic to exorcise devils. 
And the writer adds that this affair converted many, that "fear fell on them all," "that the name 
of the Lord Jesus was magnified," and he closes the account by saying, "so mightily grew 
the word of God and prevailed !" 

It would be using the name of God profanely to introduce it into so contemptible a display 
of the credulity and superstition of those half-witted creatures, and of the manner in which 
they were imposed on by their own imaginations, were it not that it is necessary to do so, in 
order to expose the almost incredibly ridiculous absurdities, that men of the present day, 
without reflection, and as a matter of course, take for sacred and important truth. 

In this case we have an exhibition of the amount of argument and evidence, that was ne- 
cessary in the Apostles' time to make a convert to Christianity. And unless the Clergy can 
deny this transaction, I should think it might be w 7 ell for them to say no more about the diffi- 
culties of propagating the Christian religion. 

The fact also, that a large portion of the early Christians believed the books now compos- 
ing the "Apocryphal New Testament," tells a tale that cannot be gainsayed for a moment. 
It confirms all I have said, and more than I have said, of the simplicity, credulity and super- 
stition of those, who first embraced Christianity. It is no answer to these facts to say that 
there were some enlightened men in the countries where Christianity first spread. The 
mass were otherwise. And especially those, who first became converts, were such as I have 
described. And any man of common mind, who will read the "Apocryphal New Testa- 
ment," must say that men, who would swallow such stories, could easily be brought to believe 
any thing whatever, that fanatics or impostors could ever wish to make them believe. 

With such a people, the more extravagant and marvellous a doctrine or narrative was, the 
better. In fact it was absolutely necessaiy that it should be so to a great degree, else they 
would not have listened to it for a moment. Imagine then such a reckless, headstrong, vio- 
lent man as Paul, travelling from place to place, sometimes with his head shaved, (Acts 18 — 



THE EARLY SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 5 

18 ;) preaching even in the streets of eitios, wherever he could get a crowd of the populace 
around him, telling men that the Son of God had been on earth in the form of a man, and had 
been cruelly slain ; hut that he had returned to life again; that he himself had been supernat- 
urally converted, and had been appointed to preach lor Jesus, to euro the sick and to cast out 
devils ; telling them also that he was ready to east, out all the devils and heal all the sick they 
would bring to him ; and is it strange, or unnatural, any thing more than mighl have been ex- 
pected, any thing more than a matter of course, thatmultitudes should have been, souk; of 
them enraged, and others astonished, attracted and deluded, by such a Strange innovation, 

and such an unaccountable attempt to upturn their accustomed religious observances, by the 

introduction of such novel and unheard-of notions? Such was the effect. If any one wish 
to form an idea of the excitement, that Paul sometimes caused, let him read the 19th chapter 
of Acts, and see what a hurly-burly and uproar was occasioned at Ephesus by his having 
preached there, and got a sect after him. 

The novel character of the doctrines taught by the Apostles, and the marvellous nature of 
their stories about Jesus, constituted the bait, by which the people were caught at every step. 
And the success of this bait was aided by that credulousness, which brought the imaginations 
of those who were sick, or who only imagined themselves sick, (for such an abundance of 
sick people has seldom been heard of in any other case,) and the imaginations of those, 
who supposed themselves possessed of devils, to assist in working what they called miracles. 

When we consider that there were twelve of these preachers, all engaged in preaching the same 
doctrines in various places, and that these doctrines were different from all others then be- 
lieved, it is natural, if each preacher made the number of converts, which he would be likely 
to, that in a few years this sect must have become numerous, and from being widely scattered 
over the country, must have attracted the notice and curiosity of all. 

Such then was the manner in which this sect was, planted — other means afterwards contri- 
buted to cultivate and rear it. The soil we have seen was adapted to the nature of the plant — 
it was a rich compost of ignorance, superstition and credulity. During the lives of the 
twelve, they, by their personal labors, accomplished much, and it appears that they authoriz- 
ed many of the new converts to become their fellow laborers. In process of time the 
gospels were written, and these writings gave the Christians a decided advantage over those 
whom they were laboring to supplant. They thus became supplied with something, to 
which they could refer as an authority for what they preached. They could then produce 
written evidence, and such evidence too as would be likely to be satisfactory to a very large 
number of the credulous persons of that day. Since few books were then written at all, and 
since the greater portion of the people had probably no acquaintance with such as were writ- 
ten, they (if they were like those of the present day who are equally unlearned) would not 
presume to doubt or scrutinize the truth of any thing, which should appear in the form of a 
book. Not having any religious books of their own, the fact, that the religious doctrines of 
the Christians, and that the accounts of the marvellous circumstances under which those doc- 
trines were communicated, should be written, was doubtless of itself, to them, a very won- 
derful affair, and was remarkably calculated to impress them with the idea that whatever the 
Apostles had told them must be true. 

Another circumstance, which most powerfully contributed to the spread of Christianity, 
was, that the importance, which the Christians attached to a belief in their faith, was so great 
as always to keep awake among them a fanatical spirit of proselytism — a circumstance, which 
before their time had probably never been known to exist, on an extended scale, in favor of 
any other system. 

The natural effect of these various causes would be to build up a great and numerous sect 
of Christians even in a few years. At length they began to be persecuted, and if persecution 
had the effect then, that it invariably does now, it must have powerfully aided the progress of 
their cause. 

Another circumstance, which prevents the spread of Christianity, in the early periods of 
its existence, from being any thing remarkable, is, that it had nothing like a regular system 
to contend with, in those places where it spread. The few heathenish notions, that men had 
about "the Gods," and about religion, had no foundation in any written authorities, but only 
in the vague and unaccountable traditionary superstitions of the people of those times. The 
Jews had a written system of theology, and Christianity could make few converts among 
them, although it pretends to have been more especially designed for them. In modern times 
it has made no considerable progress among any people, who have a written system of their 
own to appeal to — whereas if it had the least particle of miraculous power, it certainly 
would triumph over all other systems, whether they were written ones or not. 

If any further evidence be wanted that the spread of Christianity was not supernatural, 
look at the spread of Mormonism, and see how, even at this day, and in this country, a miserable 
vagabond of a" Joe Smith," in a short space of time,can put a large community in an uproar,and 
raise up a numerous sect of followers, full of faith and fanaticism, eager to believe any thing 
marvellous in relation to the book of Mormon, and the Mormon prophet, and ready to make any 
effort and any sacrifice for the propagation of the momentous truths of their Revelation. Look 
also at the success of Edward Irving's attempts to make persons " speak with tongues," &c. 
in England, and at the spread of St. Simonianism in France. Look even at the camp-meet- 



6 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

ings and revivals here in New England, and observe to how great a degree the timid and su- 
perstitious will surrender their understandings to the guidance of any ranting parson, who 
has impudence, hypocrisy, and coolness enough to put on a solemn cadaverous face, and talk 
judiciously to them about hell ; the devil, and other kindred matters. These things illustrate 
the credulity of mankind in matters of this sort, and the ease with which a system might suc- 
ceed in a superstitious and ignorant age, especially if the propagators had a few marvellous 
stories to relate, and could perform works that would pass for miracles ; and after it had suc- 
ceeded for a time, it would become so incorporated into the institutions and customs of the 
people that it would thereafterwards be believed as a matter of course, and without inquiry ; 
in the same manner, for example, as Christianity is now by the great mass of those who be- 
lieve it at all. 

The fact, that some of the Apostles suffered martyrdom rather than renounce their faith, 
has been looked upon as evidence that they were engaged in the cause of truth. But martyr- 
dom is evidence only of a man's honesty — it is no evidence that he is not mistaken. Men 
have suffered martyrdom for all sorts of opinions in politics and in religion ; yet they could 
not therefore have all been in the right ; although they could give no stronger evidence that 
they believed themselves in the right. 

The Apostles undoubtedly supposed they had seen Jesus perform miracles, and that, in 
circulating their accounts of him, they were telling the truth. They undoubtedly believed 
that they themselves could perform miracles of a certain kind, such as casting out devils, and 
healing the sick ; although in reality, as 1 think has been shewn, the imagination must have, 
in many instances, and probably in all, created the malady, and as really, in all cases effected 
the cure, if there were any cure. But the Apostles, being simple men. understood nothing 
of the power of the imagination ; and therefore honestly believed that all that appeared was 
real. They themselves were as superstitious as those to whom they preached. This fact is 
proved by such circumstances as these, viz. Paul had his head shaved because he had a vov\ 
(Acts IS — 18). Paul imagined himself forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach in particular 
places, (Acts 16 — 6 Sc 7). The Apostles commanded the convert- to abstain from things 
strangled, as if there were a wickedness in eating such, (Acts 1 -'»)• When a young 

man had fallen from a window, he was taken up apparently lifeless, (as persons frequently 
are after a fall) ; but on bis reviving, it was esteemed a miracle, as well by Paul himself, it 
would seem, as by the bystanders, .'<> — 9). Peter imagined himself delivered from 

prison by an angel, (Acts 12 — 5 to 11) ; although the conduct of the supposed angel was pre- 
cisely such as we may reasonably suppose would have been that of a man, who should have 
attempted to liberate him. For example, a linht shone in the room, (as Would have been 
the case if a man bad gone in, for he would have undoubtedly carried a light in with him) ; 
the supposed angel struck or touched him on the side, (to wake him evidently, just as n man 
would have done) ; " raised him up," and said to him, "arise up quickly, gird thyself, and 
bind on thy sandals, cast thy garments about thee, and foUowme," (precisely as a man would 
have directed him). It is evident that the guard must have been asleep, whether the i 
who liberated Peter, were an angel or a man ; for Peter was not detected in going out, al- 
though he would as likely have been when in the company of an angel, who should walk be- 
fore, as this one is said to have done, as in the company of a man. Peter supposed that the 
gate opened of its own accord ; but he was liable to be mistaken as to this fact, 
man would be very likely to leave it open as he went in ; or if he did not leave it open, he 
would undoubtedly leave it in such a condition that he could open it readily, and without any 
such effort as a person walking behind him would be likely to observe. After they had thus 
left the prison, and " had passed on through one sfr,,L" t lie supposed angel "departed from 
him" — probably he took one street, as a man would have done, and that Peter took another. 

Now although this supposed angel conducted precisely as a man would have done, and al- 
though Peter said, at the time, that the whole transaction appeared to him like a dream, yet after- 
wards he said he knew certainly " that the Lord had sent his angel to deliver him." This 
fact shews the superstition of the man, and his readiness to attribute, to the supernatural in- 
terference of Deity, occurrences that could be accounted for in a natural manner. 

A paragraph, beginning at the 23d and ending at the -28th verse of Acts 28th, shews by how 
simple an affair Paul w-as led to imagine that the Lord had given up to destruction the Jews, 
whom theretofore Jesus had been supposed to be sent more especially to save ; and that it 
was his (Paul's) duty to abandon them, and preach to the Gentiles. 

If any one w ish for further evidence of the weakness and superstition of the Apostles, or 
their converts, let him read the Acts throughout, and if he be an unprejudiced man, he will 
see evidence enough of these facts at every step. 

I must now suppose that the manner in which Christianity was propagated, has been 
pointed out so as to make it apparent that there was nothing miraculous in it. But if any 
will still insist that Christianity is a revelation from God, made to men to save their souls, let him, 
if he can, account for the fact that God did not cause it to be spread over the whole world at 
once, in a year, or day. It was as important, if this system be true, that it should be spread, 
as that it should be revealed, and God could have miraculously spread it, as easily as he 
could have miraculously revealed it. There is no sense in saying that he has committed to 
men the business of spreading this religion 5 for it is manifestly absurd to suppose that he 



THE EARLY SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY. 7 

would entrust to men the completion of a design, which he had himself commenced, and 
which it was so immensely important to have completed at once ; when he must have known 
the beggarly success that men would meet with. How happens it then that the Christian, 
after eighteen centuries, is a religion of such limited prevalence? How happens it that this 
wonder-working Revelation, which set out to revolutionize and reform society, and save the 
human race, has not become more generally known in the world? Why, one reason is, that 
it is not, after all, quite so wonder-working an affair as it has been cried up to be. And an- 
other reason probably is, that the Almighty, instead of miraculously aiding its progress, never 
has miraculously aided it. 

But, above all, how comes it to pass that such a sovereign cure for souls has not been more uni- 
versally adopted where it is known ? One reason may have been that men have often doubted 
whether souls have any mortal diseases ; and another has been, that this alleged specific has 
found somewhat of an obstacle in the common sense and reason of mankind. Sensible men, 
particularly in modern times, have generally had doubts, or some thing more than doubts, 
whether this pretended revelation was after all any thing more than the offspring of super- 
stition, delusion, or imposture. In short, they have not believed it, A considerable portion 
of the male adults, who pretend to be Christians, do not believe it. They wish to believe it; 
they think it best to believe it (because they think it useful) — they dread to disbelieve it — 
they have a sort of lingering reverence for it — they perhaps persuade themselves that, on the 
whole, they do believe it — yet they do not in reality. They have a prejudice in its favor — 
not a conviction of its truth founded on evidence. They cannot help suspecting that it is a 
thing not to be inquired into ; that it is neither reasonable in itself, nor founded on reason- 
able evidence. One proof of this is found in the fact that they are afraid to have the com- 
munity inquire into the evidences against it, or to have these evidences propagated, and this 
at a time too when it is the established policy of society to encourage discussions on other 
matters as being the surest means of eliciting the truth. The Clergy especially would shut 
out every thing like light, and stifle every thing like inquiry on this subject, and the misera- 
ble rant and declamation, to which, instead of arguments, they resort to effect these objects, 
shew that they are aware that Christianity will not bear an examination. Although they 
know that a large portion of the male part of the community are unbelievers, they choose to 
Jet them remain such, if they will but keep silent, rather than to run the risk of a more gen- 
eral overthrow of Christianity by a discussion, which they might awaken for the purpose of 
establishing it. When they are pressed with arguments against the truth of Christianity, 
they attempt to divert the public mind to the question of its utility, as if its truth was not 
the first thing to be settled. Why this mean unmanly practice of subterfuge m\d shuffling? 
this refusal to meet argument? This shrinking from the responsibilities of their station? It 
is, as I believe, because that, like other hired troops, they have no principles which require them 
to put at hazard their interests. It is because their cowardice, selfishness or prejudices are 
too strong for their consciences and reason. It is because they are but too certain that if a 
free discussion of this subject be permitted, truth, operating on their own minds, or the 
minds of the people, will require them to abandon their calling, and surrender their conse- 
quence in society. It is, in short, because that, at the bottom of all their other opinions and 
feelings on this subject, there is a lurking apprehension, (I dare almost say conviction,) that 
their disgusting system is but chaff.* 

* 1 trust the time is not far distant, when the moral courage of the more intelligent and independent por- 
tion of the community will be sufficiently aroused to expose, without reserve, the dishonest and coward- 
ly practices of these men ; when their attempts to dissuade weak and timid minds from the examination 
of evidence ; to keep the reasons and arguments of their opponents out of sight ; and to so fill the minds 
of their dupes with vulgar and superstitious fears and prejudices as to deprive them of all mental liberty 
on this subject, will receive their merited condemnation ; and when the efforts, which, instead of meeting 
the arguments of men, they are now so zealously making, by Sabbath-schools and otherwise, to forestal 
the judgments and permanently rivet the faith of the young, by impressing and deluding their imagina- 
tions, before they are capable of reasoning, will be regarded as a nefarious artifice for perpetuating their 
own influence by depriving the human mind of its rights, and truth and reason of their power. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Nature and Character of Jesus. 

Before proceeding to the examination of the alleged miracles of Jesus, it is desirable thai: 
we form an established opinion in relation to his personal nature and character ; for if we 
suppose him a mere man, we shall be the more ready to suspect that his alleged miracles 
were not real: on the other hand, if we give him a super-human nature, we shall be more in- 
clined to believe the contrary. What evidence then is there, previous to his beginnigto work 
miracles, that tends to shew that he was possessed of any other than a: human nature? 



s 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 



w P are told, in the first place, that he had a miraculous origin ; that God (or the Holy 
GhosO was his father, (Mat. i. 20— Luke i. 35), and Luke (i. 35) gives this fact as the reason 
whuhe was to be called the Son of God. But let us see whether this fact were so. 

It is clear, on the one side, that if he had such an origin, no single human being could have 
had personal or absolute knowledge of the fact except his mother. Now, if we had the di- 
rect declaration of the mother that such was the truth, it would, be idiocy to pretend that a 
fact admitted to be contrary to the order of nature, and such as the whole world never wit- 
nessed before or since, ought to be taken as true, on the bare assertion of a single person, and 
of a person too, who, on the natural supposition in relation to her case, must have been under 
one of the strongest of all possible earthly temptations to deceive. 

But we have not even her testimony to this point. We have only the simple declarations, 
made by two men (Matthew and Luke) more than forty years afterwards—men, who could 
not have personally known the truth of what they stated ; who unquestionably never heard 
a syllable of the matter until thirty or forty years from the time when it was said to have oc- 
curred 3 who give us no account, either of the manner in which, or of the persons from 
whom, they obtained their information ; and who differ widely in their account of the circum- 
stances attending the transaction — Luke relating many marvellous preliminaries of which 
Matthew makes no mention, although they are such as he too would be likely to have related, 
if he had ever heard of them. Now he must have heard of them, if he had obtained his in- 
formation of the principal fact from Mary, who was the only person that could have abso- 
lutely known that fact, if it were true. 

It is evident, therefore, that each of these men took up some one of the unattested stories, 
floating in that superstitious, credulous, ignorant, and deluded community, forty years after 
the supposed transaction. 

After Jesus had begun to preach, many believed him to be a super-human personage, and 
it is easy to see that that circumstance alone would give rise, among those simple men, to 
many conjectures about his origin ; and every one of his followers would be desirous to be- 
lieve that it was supernatural, and would, for the sake of thus believing, catch at the slight- 
est suggestion, conjecture or circumstance, as sufficient evidence that it was so. Stories, 
thus originating, would ftt once circulate and gain currency among such a class of men as his 
followers were ; and the marvellous character of the stories, instead of being an objection to 
their credibility, would only make them the more credible to the minds of those who were 
ready and eager to believe any thing supernatural, in relation to one, whom they considered, 
the most marvellous personage that had ever appeared on earth. 

But there is no ground for any pretence that he had a miraculous origin, unless he derived 
it in the particular manner related in the Bible ; and in order to believe that he derived it in 
that manner, it is necessary to believe — what? Why, that Deity became physically a pa- 
rent! (Luke i. 35). The verse is here simply referred to, without being quoted ; for it is fit 
only to be recorded with some of the fabulous accounts of the Jupiter of the ancients.* 

As to the miraculous occurrences at his birth, such as the appearances of angels in the air, 
&c. there is no more reason to believe that they actually took place, than there is to believe 
that those did, which are related to have happened at the birth of Mahomet — nor even so 
much (if there can be the slightest reason in the world for believing either); for those peo- 
ple among whom Christianity first spread, were probably even more simple and superstitious 
than those among whom Mahometanisrn first spread, and consequently such marvellous ac- 
counts, if equally untrue, would be more likely to gain currency among them than among the latter. 

But the Bible itself contains the most direct proof that the accounts about his origin, and 
about the supernatural appearances at the time of his birth, are both untrue. 

If either of these circumstances had been true, his own parents must have preserved the 
remembrance of it, and would forever after, have looked on him as an extraordinary being. But 
the stoiy, which is told of his conduct at Jerusalem when twelve years old, would, if true, 
entirely prove that, up to that time, they had not so viewed him. This story (Luke ii. 4S to 
50) represents his parents as being "amazed" at seeing him in the temple; and when he 
asked them, " wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" " they understood not 
the sayings which he spake to them." Now, if the accounts in relation to his birth were 
true, they must have forever after viewed him as th*e Emanuel, and must, of necessity, have 
understood what he meant by being about his father's business. So that either Luke's story 
of his origin and birth, or the one of his conduct at Jerusalem, must necessarily have been 
false ; and if either of them be false, the Bible is not a Revelation from God. There is no 
room for reasonable doubt, that one story is as false as the other, and that these ignorant and 
simple biographers, who have related so many things, (of which these are a part,) that they 
could not have known to be true, even if they were true, picked them up thirty, forty or fifty 
years after they relate them to have happened, from among the thousand unfounded ones, 
that would naturally be in circulation about him.t 

*Some may perhaps believe that this verse was not intended to convev such a meaning as 1 have at 
tnbuted to it— but can such persons tell us what other definite idea can be gathered from it ? 

t We have evidence that there actually were in circulation after his death, and in credit among his fol- 



THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF JESUS. 



Again. If even the story of his conduct at Jerusalem alone had been true, he must from 
that time have been viewed with astonishment by his family, and regarded by them as an un- 
common being. If they had been, (as they probably were,) as superstitious as the ignorant part 
of their countrymen generally, this single incident of his conduct at .Jerusalem would have 
made him, in their eyes, an inspired man. Yet there is not, that I am aware of, the slightest 
evidence that, after this time, until lie began to preach, they did so look upon him. On the 
contrary, there is the most direct proof that his brothers did not — for when he pretended to he 
able to work miracles, they taunted him with his pretensions, (John 7 — 3, 4 and b) by telling 
him, if he could do such things, to show himself to the world, and also (evidently out of con- 
tempt towards him for the course he had taken) that no man, who sought to make himself 
publicly known, performed his miracles in secret. This disrespect and contempt they never 
would have exhibited towards him, if they had ever been informed by their parents, (as they 
undoubtedly would have been, if the circumstances had actually happened, and that too for 
the very purpose of procuring him respect from them,) either of his having had a miraculous 
origin, of any remarkable circumstances attending bis birth, or that he had ever exhibited to 
them any of that precocity, which he is related to have displayed at Jerusalem. 

Furthermore, if God were ever to violate the order of nature, he would not be likely to do 
it unnecessarily — and an occurrence, such as that in which Jesus is said to have had his origin, 
must have been useless, on the supposition that men would act rationally in judging of its re- 
ality from the testimony of the only one, who could have had absolute knowledge of the fact. 

Finally, Jesus was human in all his appearance, from his youth up; he is supposed to have 
laboured like a man ; he lived like a man ; he looked like a man ; his own brothers esteemed 
him as nothing but a man ; he was born of a woman; and unless God were his father, he was 
a man, and nothing but a man. 

But Christians say there is still other evidence — separate from the miraculous — which tends 
to sustain the divinity of Jesus. We are told by them that the moral grandeur and impor- 
tance of the object, at which he is said to have aimed in his public career, is of this kind. 
Now, as it is possible that a mistake exists as to the nature of this object, some inquiry in re- 
lation to it is proper. 

There has always been a disagreement between the Jews and Christians, as to the real 
design of Jesus in attempting to gain followers in the manner he did. The Jews always con- 
tended — and they surely had the proper means of knowing — that he was only one of many, 
who started up nearly at the same time, and claimed to be entitled to reign over the Jewish nation 
as temporal, or perhaps rather as semi-temporal, semi-spiritual kings — as such kings, in short, 
as the one, whom the' Jews, who depended specially upon the Almighty to send them rulers, 
expected would, about that time, be sent to them. 

It had been predicted, by those, whom the Jews considered prophets, that an extraordinary 
king, to be called the Messiah, would be sent to that nation. 

What the particular terms of all the predictions were, need not here be set forth, since it is 
admitted by Christians that they were such, as that the universal opinion, gathered from them 
by the Jews, to whom they were addressed, was, that this Messiah was to be at least a tem- 
poral, though perhaps also a religious, ruler. 

It is admitted by Christian writers that, at and about the time of Jesus, a large number 
of persons appeared in Judea, who claimed to be the Messiah that had been predicted as 
about to come, and who went about attempting to gain adherents by pretending to work 
miracles, &c* 

It is further admitted by all Christians, that the Jewish nation en masse looked upon Jesus 
as having the same object in view as these other pretended Messiahs; and it is also admitted 
by many Christians, that up to the very time when Jesus was taken and crucified, even his 
own confidential and immediate adherents, who, if Jesus had been honest towards them, 
must have known his real purposes, so far looked upon him in the same light as did the Jews, 
and in the same also as it is supposed the followers of the other pretended Messiahs looked 
upon them, as to believe that he was aiming at the acquisition of the temporal government of 
the Jews. And yet Christians now say that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus, although he 
claimed to be the Messiah, aimed at an object widely different from what was universally ex- 
pected of that Messiah, and at an object widely different from what, during nearly the whole 
of his career, his own adherents supposed him to be pursuing. 

lowers, a great variety of stories about miraculous occurrences of the most ludicrous character i magina- 
ble, though hardly more ludicrous than some related in the four gospels. That evidence is furnished by 
those books, (now published under the title of the ''Apocryphal New Testament") which were discarded 
as not being canonical, or at least as doubtful, by the Council of Nice, about three centuries after Chris*. 
As they are now admitted by Christians to be false, on that admission they prove all I wish to prove by 
them, viz. that after the death of Jesus, there were many stories in circulation respecting him, which 
rested on no authority but the tongue of rumor, and we are to judge whether these narratives, which are 
now esteemed by Christians, canonical — considering how many years after the death of Jesus they were 
written — are not as likely to have been gathered in part from simple rumor, as those others. 

* For a more full account of these Messiahs, see Rev. Thomas Newton's Dissertations on the Prophe- 
cies, Chap. 19, also Josephus, Book 2d. Chap. 13. Several of them were finally put to death. Some of 
* them succeeded in gaining a muoh larger number of followers than Jesus, in his lifetime, ever had. 



THE DEIST'S REP1.T. 
10 

No w it is clear .hat these admits of Christians as tc *- up to the time otj* 

the same period, can be eco nci lea o »J ) M | k imimate friends . It ls preposterous 
kB „ w i ng 1y cheated and ■ deceive 1 In, be t case fro dilemma that 

^renc^riSiyb^so^rattohennable J distinguish between things so w.dely 
different. Lwa£fti v is as John bays, CIS— 36,) that, after his followers had desert- 

ed^Mdhe^ 

wa ; ot of th s S" but he appears to have been himself brought to that conviction jus 
nt tha : time and solely by the fact that his former supporters had abandoned his cause for 
he imn e diately adds, "if my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight, that 
I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.' 

But whatever may have been his opinion of himself, or whatever may have been his own 
ideas of the destiny^or which he supposed God had designed him, after he was apprehended, 
the evidence is abundant as to what had previously been his purpose 

One important part of this evidence is, that Damel-the only one, I believe of the 'suppos- 
ed prophet,, who mentions a Messiah by that name-had evidently described him (Chap. 9 
-25, 26,) as one, who was to be the temporal king of the Jews; and Jesus, imagining him- 
self to be this Messiah, would naturally try to fulfil the prediction by making himself answer 
the description as well as he could. And we accordingly find that he not only continually 
represented himself as the Messiah, but that there is also an evident attempt, on the part ol 
his biographers, to make it appear that he had fulfilled the predictions, which had been made 
concerning the Messiah. • . t^-*v V -».i.' ♦. * i * 

Another piece of evidence, to the same point, is found in John, (6—15,) where it is relat- 
ed that the people, who followed him, wished then "to take him by force, and make him 
king;" a thing, that, it would naturally seem, they never would have thought of, had he not 
intimated to them that he was, at some time, to become their king. « ... ■ m 

Another fact, which shows that he expected to have become the king of the Jews, is, that 
he once rode from Bethany to Jerusalem in a very triumphal and kingly manner, attended by 
a great body of men, who were shouting in a manner clearly indicative of their belief that he 
was a descendant of David, and was about to take possession of the throne which David had 
occupied. (Mat. 21—1 to 11. Mark 11. Luke 19—28 to 44. John 12— 12 to 15.) Now if 
he did not intend to become their king at this time, as they expected, he was fraudulently 
sanctioning the mistake, under which he must have known they were acting, and must have 
knowingly led them on in a delusion. The only supposition therefore, that is consistent with 
his honesty, is, that he himself expected at this time to be made king. 

ft appears also (John 12— 14, 15) that cc it had been written," that a king of Jerusalem 
should come to that city, "sitting on an ass's colt," and Jesus at this time took pains to 
have an ass's colt obtained for him to ride on, (Mat. 21 — 1 to 7.) 

John himself acknowledges (12-^-16,) that even "his disciples understood not these things 
at the first;" that is to say, at the time when they not only saw, but joined in, all this pageant- 
ry, they did not understand that they were paying homage to one, who was to be a spiritual 
king; and if they did not so understand, there can be no doubt as to what kind of a person 
they thought they were honoring. So that Jesus, according to the express acknowledgment 
of his own advocate, must either have deceived this whole crowd of followers, or he expect- 
ed at this time to have been made king; because the impression, that he was about to become 
their king, could not have become so universal, and continued so long, among this crowd, un- 
less he had directly countenanced it. John indeed represents (12 — 16) that after "Jesus was 
glorified," (or risen, as they supposed, from the dead,) they understood exactly what these 
things, which at the time of their occurrence, they did not rightly understand, must have meant. 
But this was all an afterthought, on the part of the disciples, and is therefore good for nothing to 
the advocate of Christianity, although it enables the unbeliever to see how it was, that the re-ap- 
pearance of Jesus after his crucifixion, (a thing for which they could not naturally account) 
turned the heads of his followers, and made them see every event, which had previously 
taken place, in a very different light from that true and natural one, in which they had view- 
ed it at the time of its occurrence. After he was "glorified," they "glorified" and spiritualiz- 
ed every thing that he had previously said or done, and, by so doing, they gave to this be- 
nighted world a Revelation fit for use. 

When Jesus, in this triumphal ride, had come near to Jerusalem, (Luke 19 — 37 to 44) 
some of the Pharisees told him to "rebuke his disciples," (meaning undoubtedly, by 'his dis- 
ciples, 3 the crowd generally who were attending him,) and they would be likely, under such cir- 
cumstances, to say to him many other thingej which his biographers would not choose to tell 



THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF JESUS. 11 

to as. But the fact, that the Pharisees, who were among the principal men of the Jews, told 
him to rebuke his followers, shows that they had no idea of receiving him, and he was prob- 
ably thereby convinced that be could not be made king, for he immediately falls into a lamen- 
tation for the fate of the city — not for the souls of the Jews, as he would naturally have done, 
had he designed to be only a spiritual redeemer — but for the late of the city itself. He vir- 
tually says that if the Jews would have accepted him as king, their city would have been 
safe; but now, he says, that "its enemies shall east a trench about it, and compass it around, 
and keep it in on every side, and lay it even with the ground," &e. Now this is not the lan- 
guage of a purely spiritual teacher; it is precisely such language as we might reasonably ex- 
pect to hear from a man, who wished to be the ruler of a people, but who, on being rejected 
as such, should endeavor to alarm their fears for the fate of their city. Or it- is such lan- 
guage as we might reasonably expect to hear from a man so deluded as to imagine that he 
had been appointed by God to be the deliverer of a city, but, who, on finding that he could 
not become its deliverer, should suppose, as a matter of course, that it would fall into the 
hands of its enemies and be destroyed. 

The desertion of Jesus, by his followers, furnishes an argument in support of the supposi- 
tion that he attempted to be king of the Jews, rather than that he was a superior being. There 
was a time when he had a company, estimated at about five thousand, following him, (John 
6 — 2, 10). Yet they soon began to leave him, (John 6 — 66, 67) and but a handful finally re- 
mained. Now it would be nothing strange that the followers of a man, who was attempting 
to make himself king of the Jews, should, after a little time, desert his cause; but it would 
be very strange if a Son of God should either be unable to make proselytes of all who should 
come to hear him, or should fail to keep them after he had once made them. 

When he was finally taken prisoner, the universal charge against him was, that he had 
claimed to be the "King of the Jews." The people scoffed at, and insulted him, on that very 
account. They placed a mimic crown on his head, put on him a purple robe, and jeered 
him with "Hail, King of the Jews." How are this unanimous opinion of him, and senti- 
ment towards him, to be accounted for, otherwise than by supposing him to have attempted 
to make himself a king? The answer is obvious — they cannot otherwise be accounted for. 

Luke says also, (23 — 1, 2) that men declared before Pilate, that they had "found that fel- 
low perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Ccesar y saying, that he himself is 
Christ, a King." Yes, he even went so far as to forbid his adherents any longer to pay trib- 
ute unto Caesar, and gave as a reason why they should not, that he himself was «king, (their 
king). But Christians will probably say that these men did not speak the truth. And what 
reason have we to believe that they did not? Did any one contradict what they stated ? No 
— every body, at that time, acquiesced. Still, because they told a natural and probable story 
about Jesus Christ, instead of a marvellous and improbable one, they are not to be credited; 
because they made neither a God, nor a Son of God, out of "this fellow," they must be set 
down as "false witnesses;" because there were several, who said that they heard the same 
language, they must all have conspired to destroy him by false testimony; because their state- 
ments corroborate, and are corroborated by, what had already become notoriously the public 
belief, they must of course be untrue; because, in short, these men testified against Jesus, in- 
stead of testifying for him, they are not to be believed. This is the kind of reasoning to 
which Christians must resort. 

Jesus once told his disciples (Luke 22 — 28 to 30) in substance, that as a reward for their 
fidelity to him through all the difficulties and opposition he had met with, he should give each of 
them a kingdom, and that they should "sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 
Now if he meant earthly thrones, he of course was himself to be an earthly king, for his lan- 
guage evidently implies that his twelve disciples were to be kings under him. His language 
is, "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat 
and drink at my table, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Observe, they 
were to eat and drink at his table at the same time that they were to be kings over the tribes 
of Israel; of course, if their thrones were on earth, his table must have been on earth too, 
and he must have been an earthly king. But the Christian will reply that these thrones were 
to be thrones in heaven. Well, be itso — what then is the inference? Why, that they have 
kings in heaven. 

The evidence already offered ought, as it seems to me, to be decisive; but there is one ad- 
ditional fact, which, if it do not prove that he attempted to make himself king, does, never- 
theless, put it beyond a reasonable doubt, that, up to the time when he was seized, he had had 
no such object in view as Christians pretend. It appears (Luke 22 — 36, 37, SS,) that in the 
evening before he was apprehended, and after Judas had left the room under circumstances, 
which led Jesus to suppose that he was going to prove treacherous, he directed his remaining 
disciples to provide themselves with swords, evidently in order that they might be prepared 
for any danger, that might ensue. And when his disciples told him' "here are two swords" 
— (an incident, which shows that after their affairs began to grow desperate, they kept 
swords by them) he assented to their taking them by answering "it is enough;" and it ap- 
pears afterwards that the swords were accordingly taken. Now I suppose it can hardly be 
necessary to go into an argument, even with Christians, in order to prove that a real "Prince 
of Peace," a purely religious or moral teacher, or any Divine Being, just as he was about to 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 




tions ol 

mor; 
hi 
wh 
thei 

t0 *V/Xr7;S lhat he ™ a = Gd U ' eir USe 

uml I e tund I e 1 be s a|aiLt him too great to be rented with safety. These cir, 
cumstances show Lt his command to his disciples, to desist from further violence, was a mat- 

%£?et^^ party had swords with them at this time 

for it does not rest on the testimony of Luke alone, Matthew and John, who were of th 
twelve, and probably were on the spot at the time, both say that a man's ear was cut off with 

a his'clear. therfore, from these facts, that Jesus could not have been such a personage as 
Christians believe him to have been ; and if he was not, it is of no consequence to us what he 
m;iv iiav^ been, although the evidence may leave us in no doubt in relation to it. 

Taking it for granted 'then,that the evidence has settled the question, so far as it was necessary to 
be settled, in relation to his object in his public career, we come now to another matter, to 
which Christians refer as evidence of his divinity, viz, the alleged perfection of his personal 
character. This point will be examined, although somewhat of his personal character has al- 
ready been developed. -,,•■!• 

Perhaps the most conspicuous defects in his personal character were, 1st, his readiness to re- 
sort to subterfuge, when challenged to work miracles, by those who doubted his miraculous 
power; 2d, his propensity to practice concealment; and 3d, his notorious cowardice. A few in- 
stances only of conduct, illustrative of each of these characteristics, need be referred to. 

As evidence of his readiness to resort to subterfuge, when challenged to work^ miracles by 
those who doubted his miraculous power, the following cases are deemed sufficient. 

On one occasion (Mark 8 — 11 to 13) when some of the Phariseess came to question him, and 
asked him to show them a sign— apparently that they might judge of the justice of his claims 
to be the Messiah— he pretended to his disciples that these Pharisees were a very unreasona- 
ble set of men to ask such a thing of him, and said he would give them no sign, but left 
them and departed. 

M irk says that their object was to entrap him, or to work some mischief with him— but how 
did Mark know that they had any other design than their question implies? The biographers 
of Jesus were very good at conjecturing reasons, finding apologies, and hunting excuses for 
the dastardly couducl of their master. 

At another time, (John 2 — 13 to 21) when he had been attempting to drive the Jews from the 
temple, and they had asked him— as they reasonably might do — what sign he could give them 
as evidence of his right to do so, the only sign he proposed to show them was this, that if they 
would destroy their beautiful temple — a thing which he knew of course they would not do — he 
would rebuild it in three days. Is it possible to imagine an evasion more mean or contemptible? 

John says that Jesus, in this instance, referred to •' the temple of his body." But if he did, 
he acted the knave outright, because he must have known that he was deceiving those whom he 
addressed. 

Once (Luke 4 — 16 to 30) in his travels he came to "Nazareth, where he had been brought up," 
and where he was probably known. He here told the people that he was the one who had been 
prophesied of, but virtu-dly acknowledged thatthey had a right to expect he would work mira- 
cles, for he said, "ye will surely say unto me, whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, 
do also here in thy country." But, as an excuse for n^t working any miracles, he made use of 
this despicable pretence, viz: that "no prophet is accepted in his own country" — inuendo, 
that it would be of no avail even to work real miracles before those who knew him. It appears 
— putting the natural construction upon the remainder of Luke's story — that the people there- 
upon thrust him out of the place, dragged him to the brow of a hill, frightened him by pre- 
tending to be about to cast him headlong down it, and then let him go. And, in my judgment, 
he had no reason to complain of the treatment he received. 

On another occasion John says (6 — 30) that the people put the question to him directly, 
" What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work'}" 
It appears, from the context, that these men had taken much pains to find him, and had come 
from a distance to see him; and although their question indicates an intention to be convinced 
by nothing less than a miracle, they, at the same time, declare their intention to believe in him, 
(the very thing he desired of all men,) if he would but work one plainly. In all this they ask- 
ed nothing which was not entirely reasonable. They desired only that he should exhibit the 
credentials, which he professed to carry with him, as evidence of "his authority. They, in fact, 
offered him just such an opportunity as a real miracle-worker would have desired. But Jesus, 



THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF JESUS. 13 

instead of working 1 a miracle, chose to talk about something' else, about their motives in follow- 
ing him, about his being " the broad that came clown from heaven," &.C., and went on talking 
about one thing and another, that had nothing to do with the miracle which they had challeng- 
ed him to work, until (John G — GO, 01. 06, and 67) the company left him in evident disgust. 

I suppose Christians would say, as John says that Jesus intimated, (John 6 — 20) that he had 
already wrought miracles before them, and since they did nut give him credit for them, it was 
not his business to go on working them. Now this apology is but a poor compliment to the 
character of his miracles, for it assumes that they did not convince eye-witnesses. But — leav- 
ing that consideration— how did Jesus know that these particular men, who had now come so 
far, apparently for no other reason than to ascertain whether lie could work miracles, had ever 
before seen him work what he called miracles ? Besides, their question implies that they never 
had seen him work a miracle, and their declaration is, at least, as good, in such a case, as his. 
Admitting it therefore to be true — as we must do until the contrary be unequivocally proved — 
that they never had seen a miracle wrought by him, he was without excuse in refusing them, 
and his conduct is to be accounted for, only by supposing that he could not work miracles be- 
fore those who were disposed to insist upon seeing a real miracle, and not to be satisfied with 
one of the common kind of pretended miracles, such as great numbers of persons, at that time, 
were in the habit of performing. 

Another defect in his character, which was to be mentioned, was his propensity to practice 
concealment. He again and again, when he had done something, which his biographers have 
called a miracle, charged those, who were with him, "to let no man know it." In one instance 
(Mark 1 — 40 to 44) where he is said to have cured a leper, after he had done it, " he straitly 
charged him, and saith unto him, see thou say nothing to any man." 

In a case, (Mark 8 — 22 to 26) where it is said that lie cured a blind man, " he led the blind 
man out of the town''' to do it ; and not satisfied with that, he told the man, when the work was 
done, '-neither to ^o into the town, nor tell it to any in the town." 

In the case (Mark 5 — 37 to 43) where he is said to have restored to life the dead daughter of 
Jairus, he suffered none but Peter, James, John and the father and mother of the child to go 
into the room with him, although others desired to go in ; and when the scene was over, he 
even "charged" those, who had been witnesses, "that no man should know of it;" and John 
in his biography of Jesus, says not a word about it; and we are indebted, for such a story as 
we have, to those who were not eye-witnesses. 

In another instance, (Mark 7 — 32 to 3G) where he is said to have cured (after a great deal of 
apparently unnecessary ceremony) a man, who ,; was deaf and had an impediment in his speech," 
'he charged" those, who had been present, "that they should tell no man." 

In still another case (Mat. 9 — 27 to 30) where it is related of him that he cured two blind 
men, after the work was done, " he straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it." 

Is there any excuse for such conduct as thh in a real mirarle-workeT? Was not the taunt 
of his brothers well applied, when they said to him, (John 7 — 4) in substance, that no man did his 
works in secret, when he was seeking to make himself publicly known, and told him, if he 
could work miracles, to do it before the world ? 

His brothers appear to have been men of some understanding — for, although they, like the 
rest of their countrymen, believed in miracles, yet they saw readily enough that for a pretend- 
ed miracle-worker, either to avoid the scrutiny of those who doubted his miraculous power, to 
select, the right kind of witnesses of his acts, ©r to be careful to have no witnesses at all, was 
" no way to do things." 

He appears also to have been very cautious, in the early part of his career, that the public 
should not know that he claimed to be the Messiah. He once (Mat. 16 — 13 to 20. Mark 8 — 
27 to 30. Luke 9 — 18 to 21) asked his disciples, "Who say the people that I am ?" And when 
they had told him that men had different opinions about him, "He saith unto them, But who 
say ye that I am ?" Peter then expressed his belief that he was " the Christ." Whereupon 
" he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ."* 

Cowardice was another defect in his character, and it is made so manifest that it cannot be 
concealed. He repeatedly betrayed it by fleeing from his enemies, and by so doing, he must 
have brought himself, and his pretensions into public contempt. 

When his disciples came to him, and told him that John the Baptist had been beheaded by 
order of Herod, (Mat. 14—12, 13) "he departed into a desert place apart;" or, in plain En- 
glish, hejled. 

John says, (10 — 39, 40) in speaking of another occasion, "Therefore they sought again to 
take him, but he escaped out of their hands, and went away beyond Jordan, and there he abode;" 
that is to say, he run away, and stayed away. 

On another occasion also John says, (11 — 53 and 54) " Then from that day forth they took 
council together for to put hiin to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the 
Jews." 

*Some of the expressions, employed by the writers in relating this affair, appear to have been so un- 
reasonably "glorified," that in order to put together a story which should appear natural and unstrained- 
throughout, I have selected the most natural expressions from each of the accounts, instead of quoting 
the whole of any single one. 



14 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

Matthew says, (12 — 14, 15, 16) in still another case, "Then the Pharisees went out, and held 
council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew him- 
self from thence, and charged his followers that they should not make him known :" that is, he 
took himself off, and told his friends to let nobody know where he had gone. 

John says again, (8 — 59) "Then took they up stones to cast at him ; but Jesus hid himself, 
and went out of the temple," &c. Yes, it seems that this Son of God, in a case of emergency, 
could even "hide" himself. 

But the most contemptible instance of the cowardice of Jesus is related by John, (7 — 1 to 
10) who says of him, that " he walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Jewry, because the 
Jews sought to kill him." He then adds, that the feast of Tabernacles was at hand, and that 
his brothers wished him, if he could work miracles, to go up to the feast and perform them 
openly. They also taunted him with doing his works in secret But neither solicitations nor 
taunts could induce him to go with them. He attempted to excuse himself by saying that the 
world hated him ; and said to them, " Go ye up to this feast, I go not up yet unto this feast, for 
my time is not yet full come." What then did this man do ? This bold reformer ? This pre- 
tended Messiah ? This man, who afterwards (Mat. 26 — 53) said that he could call upon his 
Father, and he would give him more than twelve legions of angels to protect him ? Why, he 
remained behind until his brothers had gone, " but (to use John's own language) when his 
brethren had gone up, then went he also up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." 

The man, who can read these accounts of his secresy, his cowardice, and of the miserable 
subterfuges to which he would resort to prevent an exposure of his incapacity to work miracles 
before scrutinizing eyes, and not feel " ashamed of Jesus" as a Master, must not only be quite 
content to have a master, but very indifferent in his choice of one. And be it not forgotten,, 
that those, who, after having had their attention called to this conduct of Jesus, shall continue 
to advocate Christianity, must practice the effrontery of pretending that this creeping, skulk- 
ing, hiding, fleeing fellow was acting apart appropriate to a Son of God, and exhibiting a per- 
fect pattern of moral greatness. 

Such, be it remembered, is one part of the character given to this man by his best friends. 
It is no " enemy that has done this." It all comes from men, who evidently did not intend to 
let out any thing, which would make against their cause, but who happened to be too simple 
always to know what it would be expedient to keep back. And we can easily judge, from the 
character given to this man by his friends, what an one would have been given to him by an 
unbelieving eye-witness, if such an one had cared enough about him to take the trouble of ex- 
posing the whole of his conduct. 

Christians have the opinion that Jesus, at last, delivered himself up, magnanimously and will- 
ingly, a martyr for the benefit of mankind. Now this opinion is founded entirely upon the im- 
probable, to the rejection of the probable, part of the contradictory testimony in relation to his 
conduct on that occasion. The probable part of the testimony (arid there is enough of it for 
my purpose,) goes, directly and manifestly, to show that Jesus skulked and endeavored to escape 
in this instance, in the same manner he had so often done defore. 

But before introducing this testimony, let us look at the absurdity of that which Christians 
adopt. The latter is, that at the supper, on the evening before Jesus was taken, it was under- 
stood between him and Judas, that the lattef should betray him ; that Judas thereupon left the 
room, obtained a posse of men, went in search of Jesus, and found him, not in the room where he 
had left him, but concealed in a garden ; that he approached him, addressed him as a friend, 
and kissed him ; that Jesus then addressed Judas as a friend, saying to him, ;t Friend, wherefore 
art thou come ?" (Mat. 26—49, 50.) Now is it to be supposed that such a solemn farce of af- 
fected friendship would have been acted over between two men, if it had been previously un- 
derstood with certainty, that the one would turn enemy, and deliver the other into the hands of 
those who would put him to death? 

It is nevertheless probable that, previously to the supper, Jesus had seen reason to suspect the 
fidelity of Judas, and that, when he saw him leave the room, he apprehended that an immediate 
attempt was to be made by Judas to have him seized. This supposition accounts for Jesus's 
leaving the house, after the departure of Judas, and going as he did, in the darkness of the 
night, into the concealment of a garden. (John 18 — 1.) It is natural too, that, when Judas ap- 
proached him in the garden, Jesus, seeing that escape was impossible, should return a friendly 
reply to the salutation of his suspected enemy, because he might have irritated one whom he 
feared, if he had showed any suspicion of his malicious design. But it is beyond credibility, if it 
had previously been explicitly understood between them, that Judas should act the enemy, that 
Jesus should thus seriously address him as a friend. 

This particular story about Jesus's conversation with Judas at supper was probably made up 
or " glorified," by these apostles, out of something that had passed, as some other conversa- 
tions appear to have been, for the purpose of making it appear that their "Divine Lord and 
Master' 3 could not have met with any disaster, which he had not forseen, and intended to meet. 
Jesus's alleged predictions (which none of his disciples appear to have understood at the time 
they were made) that he should rise again, were probably manufactured, or " glorified" out of 
something or other, and in the same way, to meet the necessities of the case, or to make every 
thing correspond with the ideas, which they had come to entertain of Jesus, at the time they 
wrote. 



THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF JESUS. 15 

Perhaps it will be thought strange that Judas should have found Jesus in the night, if there 
had been no previous concert between them. But John says (18 — 2) that Judas knew where 
this garden was, and knew also that Jesus often went there with his disciples. He therefore, 
after having procured men to go with him, probably went first to the house where he had left 
Jesus and his disciples at supper, and on not finding them there, suspected this garden to be the 
place of their concealment. 

There are several items of testimony, which tend to show that Jesus intended, at this time, to 
escape the danger, which he apprehended to his life. One is, (Mat. 20 — 24) that, at the supper, 
he said, in the presence of Judas, (whom, as was before remarked, he probably suspected of hav- 
ing a design against him,) "wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had 
been good for that man if he had not been born." What was the occasion for such a remark, 
unless it were intended as a menace to deter Judas from any attempt against his life ? 

Another is, (John 18 — 1) that after Judas had left the room, Jesus and his disciples left it also, 
(although it was a dark night, as is proved by the fact that those, who came to take him, carried 
lanterns and torches, (John 18 — 3) for the purpose of finding him,) went away, crossed a brook, 
and took up quarters for the night in a garden. Now can any reason be imagined why this man 
should leave a house, and go into a garden, in the darkness of the night, and remain there, un- 
less it were for concealment and safety ? 

But there is less reason to suppose that Jesus had any other motive than that of conceal- 
ment and security, in this instance, than there would be in the case of many other persons in 
the like circumstances; becauseit was a common thing for him to hide himself from his ene- 
mies: and, moreover, if he had wished, as Christians would have it, to offer up his life at this 
time, he would have had this special reason for remaining where Judas had left him, viz: that 
he might not fail o£ being found by those who were seeking to destroy him. 

Another fact, too unequivocal and decisive to admit of argument, is, that in this crisis of 
his affairs, he directed his followers to provide themselves with swords, and assented to their 
taking with them the two, which they had. (Luke 22 — 36 and 38). 

The fact also, that some of his disciples, when they saw that Jesus was likely to be taken, 
evinced so much readiness to fight, and appealed to him to know whether they should not 
" smite with the sword," show that they had looked forward to such an exigency, and had 
made up their minds to defend themselves, if it should be practicable, and that he had no idea 
of just then offering himself up, or of being offered up, as a sacrifice for mankind — at least, 
if he could prevent it. 

Another item of the same kind of testimony is, that after he had come into the garden, he 
directed his disciples to " watch," (keep guard), while he went and prayed, (Mark 14 — 34). 
When be returned also, and found them asleep, he said unto Peter, " What, could ye not 
watch with me one hour?" (Mat. 26 — 40). 

Still another item is, that when Jesus discovered those who had come to take him, he said 
to his disciples, "Rise up, let us go: Lo ! he that betrayeth me is at hand." (Mark 14 — 42). 
What is this but saying, " Let us run, we're going to be takenl" But it was too late to escape, 
for Mark adds, that " immediately , while he yet spake, Judas and a great multitude, with 
swords and staves, came," and, after Judas had designated the one to be seized, " laid their 
hands on him, and took him." 

Here is evidence enough, one would think, to satisfy any candid mind, possessed of common 
discernment, that Jesus, in this case, as he had so often done before, sought, in the most cow- 
ardly manner, to escape the fate that overtook him. His disciples indeed would represent him 
as having courted death, and perhaps, at the time when these accounts were written, the au- 
thors had brought themselves to believe, that he had actually desired to die for the benefit of 
mankind. But we are to judge from the facts themselves, and not from the subsequent con- 
struction put upon those facts by simple men, who, as we can easily see, may have been, 
" after Jesus had been glorified," and all that, in a state of perfect delusion in relation to the 
meaning of the whole affair. 

The manner of Jesus, while upon the cross, is in strict accordance with the supposition of 
his being a weak spirited victim, rather than a voluntary martyr, conscious of the importance 
and necessity of his dying, and refutes the pretence that he died for the purpose which Christ- 
ians allege; for if such were the purpose of his dying, there was more in that purpose, to 
one who could appreciate it, to sustain a man through the scene, than any other martyr ever 
had. But this man sunk under the infliction, said that God had forsaken him, and throughout, 
disclosed the weakness of his character. 

His conduct too after his recovery from his crucifixion, if he did recover from it, corresponds 
well with his conduct before it. He lurks about privately. He does not, as Peter, one of his 
disciples, expressly acknowledges, (Acts 10 — 41), " show himself to all people," but to a few 
friends only — and to these he shews himself, as far as appears by the evidence, but a few times 
during forty days, and at those times " in the evening," and within closed doors, (John 20 — 
19 and 26), or in some other private and stealthy manner. 

One other trait in his character deserves an allusion. We have some little evidence that 
the notoriety, which he acquired among the ignorant, produced upon him somewhat of the 
effect which it frequently does upon vulgar minds, and none others, viz : an idea that the hap- 
piness of thoee, who were once their equals, is not now to be considered in comparison with 



16 



THE DEIST 5 S REPLY. 



their own pleasure or convenience, and also an inflated assumption of superiority over them. 
He seems to have sometimes considered himself entitled, solely by the elevation of his rank 
above that of his followers, to servile and degrading manifestations of reverence from them, 
and to have been very willing to receive this kind of incense even at the expense of the 
" weio-htier matters of the law," if it but served to raise the estimation of his superiority in the 
mind/ of his followers. Look, for example, at the self-complacent assumption of dignity and 
importance, with which, when Mary had lavished the costly ointment on his head, he replied to 
the remonstrance against the foolish waste of what might have been made so valuable to the 
poor, (John 12—2 to 8.) He did not point out any good that was to come of the act, but silenc- 
ed the objector by intimating that what had been done was only a proper manifestation of rev- 
erence towards so wonderful a being as himself; and added, in substance, that there were 
always so many poor, that it was of no importance to attend to their wants when he was pre- 
sent, and when hia followers were blessed with an opportunity of appropriating their funds to 
demonstrations of devotion towards him. And yet this man was the author of a religion " pe- 
culiarly adapted to the poor." 

On another occasion (Luke 7—38,) this delightful fellow permitted even a female to "Kiss 
his Feet,— to wash them ivith her tears — and to wipe them with the hairs of her head," and yet 
women are now told that the author of this elegant act of gallantry was the founder of a reli- 
gion, which their self-respect and a proper regard for the dignity of their sex, imperiously re- 
quire them to embrace. 

But Christians have a saying that Jesus " went about doing good." Well, supposing he did 
for a year or two give his attention to "doing good" — is there any thing so remarkable in the 
fact that it can be accounted for only by supposing him a divine being ? But how was this mat- 
ter? Did he really "go about, doing goodV Was he "doing good" -when he consented to 
the foolish waste of "three hundied pence worth of ointment, which might have been sold and 
given to the poor?" Was he "doing good," when he suffered Mary to "kiss his feet?" 
Was he "doing good," when he sneaked up to the feast at Jerusalem in secret? Was he 
" doing good," when he rode an ass's colt to Jerusalem, to make the people believe that he had 
been appointed by the Almighty to be their king ? Was he "doing good," when he told his 
followers to arm themselves with swords? Was he "doing good," wiien practising the mean 
evasions, the subterfuges and the secresy, which have been before referred to ? " Why, no, per- 
haps not," the Christian will probably answer, "but then he healed a great many sick folks, and 
cast out a great, great many devils." But it is a supposable case, and perhaps it will hereafter 
satisfactorily appear, that he could work only such miracles as these, (where doubtless the ima- 
ginations of men did the business,) and that he wrought such more for the purpose of gaining 
adherents, and thus making himself king of the Jews, than of "doing good." 

But Christians will say that there is one kind of evidence, by which the divinity of Jesus is 
unequivocally proved, and that is furnished by his moral and religious instructions. 

Now one objection to the moral and religious precepts and doctrines ascribed to Jesus — con- 
sidering them as evidence of his divine nature — is, that a part of the moral ones are very silly, 
and a part of the religious ones are very blasphemous and absurd — as any person mav see. who 
will take the trouble to read them with the view of seeing whether they are or r.ot— and 
another objection to them is, that it is not likely that many of them were ever uttered by him. 

Besides, if a man, who should set himself up in opposition to a portion of the community, in 
the manner Jesus did, and should attempt to lead those whom he could persuade to join him, 
should now and then utter a sentiment somewhat original and singular, and correct withal, it 
would be no more than might reasonably be expected. We generally see such things in every 
one, who has never had his mind moulded by intercourse with the many, and who attempts to 
lead the few. Such a man generally has something original and peculiar in his ideas. 

One reason for believing that Jesus never uttered many of the sentiments ascribed to him, is, 
that a person attempting to prove himself such a Messiah as the Jews expected, and to make 
himself their king, would not be likely to give such instructions as are many of those ascribed 
to Jesus— but he would be likely to give such as could very easily be " glorified" into such as 
these are. For example, when he was addressing those, who followed him, on the subject of 
that combined temporal and religious government, which he pretended to be appointed bv God 
to establish, he would naturally speak of his kingdom in terms, which could easily be "glori- 
fied" into "the kingdom of God," "the kingdom of heaven," &c. And the Evangelists, 
although, at the time he spoke, they understood him as referring to his kingdom among the Jews, 
would yet, at the time they wrote, when their ideas of the nature of his kingdom had been 
changed by his supposed resurrection from the dead, consider every thing, That he had pre- 
viously said, as referring to a different kingdom from what they had before supposed, and would 
record it accordingly. 

Many of his moral precepts are such too as would naturally be thrown out to his hearers by 
such a man as I have supposed him to be ; because it would be necessary that one, who pro- 
posed to make himself such a king as the Jews expected, one who was to control both their 
civil and religious affairs, should give to those whom he was persuading to join him, some idea 
of the social regulations, and the moral and religious observances, which he intended to estab- 
lish among the people. 



THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF JESUS. 17 

Another reason for believing that many of the sayings, attributed to Jesus, were never utter- 
ed by him, is, that the time, when they were recorded, was so long after they are represented to 
have been spoken, as to forbid the belief that there is any gre;it accuracy in them. It is pre- 
posterous, to pretend that these men should remember conversations in the mannerthey assume 
to have done.* 

Still another reason is, that these narrators, at the time they wrote, had probably become 
more capable of being themselves the author? of whatever would seem to be above the capa- 
city of a very simple man, (if indeed there be any such sentiments in the New Testament), than 
Jesus himself, for they had then had much intercourse with mankind, they had travelled exten- 
sively, and had spoken and labored much as preachers, and their talents must have been improv- 
ed by such an education. And of their readiness to relate the best and the most they could 
either remember or imagine of the sayings of Jesus, having the semblance of similarity to any- 
thing that he had ever uttered, it seems to me there can reason ,; jly be little doubt in the mind 
of any man who reads their stories. 

In order to show how little reliance is to be placed upon the pretended authorship of the sen- 
timents ascribed to Jesus by the Evangelists, nothing more need be done than to exhibit the au- 
thority, on which his talk to the people on the mount has come down to us. Matthew would 
have us believe that he has given us the matter of a discourse, which Jesus held to his follow- 
ers at this time. And yet, as I shall attempt to satisfy the reader, Matthew not only was not 
present when the speech was made, but was not even a disciple of Jesus at the time. 

The seventh chapter of Matthew closes the speech; the eighth gives accounts of miracles, 
&c, the first verse of the ninth then says, that " he entered into a ship, and passed over, and 
came into his own city," (Nazareth.) It would appear from the remark here quoted, and from 
the last fourteen verses of the fourth chapter, that this harangue was made in Galilee, on the 
other side, from Nazareth, of the sea of Galilee. By the ninth verse of the ninth chapter, it 
appears that Matthew was found in Nazareth, and called to be a disciple, after Jesus had re- 
turned from Galilee. It is probable, from the fact that Matthew was found in Nazareth, that he 
lived there, and of course, at a distance from the place where the speech was made. This fact, 
and the fact that he was not called to be a disciple until after the speech was made, render it 
improbable that he was present at the delivery of the speech, or that he knew any thing about 
it until it was over. And yet, some ten, twenty or thirty years afterward, he pretends to give 
us the substance of a discourse, containing remarks upon a great variety of subjects, having no 
connection with each other. 

Even if he had heard them uttered, it is preposterous to suppose that he could have remem- 
bered so great a variety of disconnected remarks. But when we consider that he probably did 
not hear them, all confidence in the correctness of his report vanishes. So that, whether we 
consider this production either as heard, or only as heard of by Matthew, it comes to us in the 
shape of a thing mainly fabricated or "glorified," years afterwards. 

But there is another and stronger objection to the instructions, which are attributed to Jesus, 
than has yet been mentioned. This objection is, that the whole system of morals and religion 
is based upon the selfish principle. The system throughout, is one of rewards and punish- 
ments — the most debasing, to men's motives, of all imaginable systems. In it, right and wrong 
are not recognized as fundamental principles of action, but are made referrible to ulterior con- 
siderations of personal pleasure and pain. Jesus never instructed men to do what was right, be- 
cause it was right ; yet this is the true reason why they should do it. Nor did he instruct them 
to avoid what was wrong, for the reason that it was wrong : yet that should be the fundamental 
and principal reason in every man's mind, because it. is the mora! reason. But the Bibie, by the 
uniformity, with which it makes the selfish inducement, tlie promise of reward, or the threat of 
punishment, follow the moral precept, impliedly admits that the principal reason why we should 
do right, is, that we stiall be rewarded for it, and the principal reason why we should not do 
wrong, is, that we should be punished for it. How much real honesty of principle, -or how much 
of purely virtuous sentiment, can be infused into men's minds by means of such, mercenary in- 
ducements, I leave to others to determine. 

Men's moral principles are weak enough without their being made subordinate to selfishness ; 
and their selfishness is quite active enough, without any such effort as Christianity makes to 
constitute it the mainspring of all their conduct. There are natural sentiments of justice, rec- 
titude and virtue, in men's minds, which, when directly appealed to as motives to action, are gen- 
erally found capable of being cultivated and strengthened, and of controlling the conduct of 
any of mankind. There are few, (if indeed there are any,) men, who cannot he peisuade.i to 
do what is right, by having it urged upon them that it is right ; and there are but few men, who 
cannot, in any particular case whatever, be dissuaded from a wrong action, by having ir urged 
upon them that it is wrong. Yet a great portion of the same men, who are thus easily per- 
suaded to do what is right, by the argument that it is right, and dissuaded from doing what is 
wrong, by the argument that, it is wrong, would consider it, and justly too, a despicable, and de- 
grading descent, to yield to, or act under, the influence of such hopes of reward, and such fears 

*Both Matthew and John are supposed to have written their narratives more than thirty years after the 
crucifixion. See Rees' Cyclopaedia. 
3 



13 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

of punishment, as the Bible and its advocates attempt to awaken. And the very men, whose 
trade and incessant effort it is to bring others under the control of these base and mercenary 
and false motives of action, would consider it an imputation upon their virtue and their charac- 
ters, to insinuate that they themselves are governed by such means; and would take it in high 
dudgeon to have it intimated that their natural sense of right was scanty, or that it would in 
general be insufficient to control their conduct. But they have great fears for the virtue of 
their fellow men— it is entirely, unsafe to trust mankind in general with no motives but such as 
truth would furnish— their fellow men are generally either such simpletons that they must be 
wheedled by prospects a thousand times too extravagant to be probable, by promises of " sweet 
things" hereafter, or they are such perfect monsters that they must be set upon and overawed 
by menace, or enslaved by fear; they are utterly incapable of appreciating any consideration of 
right or reason ; and hence the absolute necessity of Christianity. 



CHAPTER III. 
The Alleged Miracles of Jesus. 

Ii it has now been reasonably shown, that up to the time when he began to work miracles, 
Jesus had exhibited no other than a human nature ; and if neither the probable object of his 
public career, his personal character, nor his religious and moral instructions, give any evidence 
of his divinity, we are to inquire as to the reality of his alleged miracles, not only without any 
previous assumption or bias in their favor, but with the same suspicion and incredulity that we 
should feel towards the pretended miracles of any other person, and with a determination to 
scrutinize them as closely as we would any others, and to detect their falsehood, if any false- 
hood can possibly be detected in them. 

It has been argued that no amount of human testimony can be rational evidence of the reality 
of an alleged miracle ; because such testimony must always be liable to this objection, viz: 
that experience has proved that it is more probable that any number of men would lie, or would 
be deluded, imposed upon, or mistaken, than that a miracle would be performed. And this ob- 
jection seems to be a good one ; because we do know that persons have, in cases almost innu- 
merable, been imposed upon by pretended miracles, but we do not know that a real miracle has 
ever been wrought by the agency of man, or that any miraculous occurrence has ever taken 
place since the order of nature was established. It probably might also be maintained, that a 
man's own senses could not be reasonable evidence of a miracle ; because men's senses have, in 
thousands of instances, deceived them in regard to pretended miracles ; but we know certainly 
of no instance where they ever proved the reality of a miracle. 

Nevertheless, the following attempted explanation of the alleged miracles of Jesus will not 
insist upon these arguments, but will proceed upon the supposition that human testimony can 
be sufficient evidence of the reality of a miracle — assuming, however, the soundness of this 
principle, viz : that we are not to believe a miracle on human testimony, so long as we can ac- 
tually discover an inconclusiveness in that testimony, or can detect a possibility of mistake or 
falsehood in the witnesses. The correctness of this principle I suppose Christians themselves 
will not have the face to dispute. 

One other principle also they must admit, viz : that the object, for which the alleged miracles 
of Jesus are said to have been wrought, can weigh nothing in favor of their reality ; because, 
if we say that God caused them to be wrought for the purpose of proving a Revelation, we 
thereby assume that a Revelation exists — which is the very thing in dispute, and which is to be 
proved by the miracles, if proved at all, and therefore is not proved at all until the miracles are 
established. If we attempt to prove the Revelation by the miracles, and also the miracles by 
the Revelation, we reason in a circle. The alleged miracles of Jesus therefore must stand ex- 
clusively upon the historical evidence, which tends to sustain them, without any regard being 
had to the purpose for which they wore wrought, if they leally were wrought. And they must 
be supported by evidence as strong as would be necessary to prove the reality of miracles, for 
the working of which no reason at all could be assigned.* 

But to proceed with the evidence. It is worthy of especial remark, and should be constantly 
borne in mind, thai at the time of Jesus, a miracle was considered, among the Jews, a very 
common occurrence. Jesus acknowledges that others could perform some of the same kind of 
miracles, which he himself did, viz : casting out devils. " If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by 

* I might here safely leave the question of Jesus's miracles, without any further argument, were I so 
disposed ; because no thinking man would for a moment believe them to have been real ones, unless he 
could see, or should fancy he could see, that it was important that they should be wrought for the purpose 
of proving a Revelation — yet, as has been shown, the purpose, for which they are said to have been 
wrought, cannot logically be taken at all into the account, when judging of their reality. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS, 19 

whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast 
out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you, (Mat. 12 — 27 & 28. 
Luke 11 — 19 & 20.) Jesus here impliedly admits, as I understand him, that others performed 
deeds similar to some of those, which, by himself possibly, and by his disciples unquestionably, 
were behoved to be miracles, and which he professed to perform for the purpose of proving his 
Messiahship. He however would make a distinction between his supposed miracles, and those 
of others, by pretending that his were done by the help of the spirit of God, and that those of 
others were wrought by the help of a different power. But the Pharisees had just been charg- 
ing him u-ith working by the power of Beelzebub, and how is an impartial person to judge who 
works by Beelzebub, (supposing there were a Beelzebub,) and who by the power of the Al- 
mighty, when both persons perform the same miracles, and each charges the other with work- 
ing by Beelzebub ? or how is an impartial person to know which are real miracles, and which 
are false, when both are apparently alike? What reason then is there for supposing that the 
works of Jesus were any better miracles than the works of others? 

Jesus also admits (Mark 9 — 38, 39 and 40) that the man, whom his disciples told him they 
had found casting out devils on his own account, was performing real miracles. True, this 
man used the name of Jesus; but he did so without authority — so that the miracles must be 
considered as much his own, as if he had used his own name, or no name at all. 

Now, if, as Jesus himself acknowledges, the miracles of others were real ones, the inference 
is inevitable from these facts, that the power to cast out devils was no evidence that a man 
was commissioned by God. But, if these performances were not real miracles, Jesus, like the 
rest of his countrymen, was so ignorant as not to know it, because he expressly acknowledges 
that they were real. 

Again Jesus says (Mat. 24 — 24) that false Christs "shall show great signs and wonders, in- 
somuch, that if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect." Now this is equivalent 
to acknowledging that false Christs could perform works so wonderful that it would be ex- 
ceedingly difficult to distinguish them from such as he himself wrought. Indeed it is equiva- 
lent to acknowledging that an impartial observer would be as likely to believe those to be real, 
as to believe his to be so. But he evidently believed that there was some supernatural cause 
why the "elect" would not be deceived by them, for he says, " if it were possible" they 
would be. And he found it necessary, by declaring such works to be the works of false 
Christs, and by cautioning his disciples in the strongest manner against them, to prevent them 
from regarding, or giving any credit to, those works, which, to unbiassed minds, would appear 
equally miraculous with his own, and would furnish equally strong evidence as his, that each 
of the authors of them was the real Messiah instead of himself. 

If the works of Jesus were so much more wonderful than man could perform as to deserve 
to be called miracles, was it not nonsense to caution his disciples so strongly against being de- 
luded by the works of others ?* 

What the works of these pretended Messiahs (of whom it is admitted by Christians that 
there were about seventy, who lived about the time of Jesus), were, I know not — but it is re- 
lated, on such authority as Christians admit to be true, that some of them got large sects after 
them. The Rev.. John Newton, in his Dissertations on the Prophecies, (Chap. 19) says that 
one of them obtained thirty thousand followers. This number is probably many times larger 
than that of those, who believed in Jesus, during his life lime. The largest estimate, which I 
have found of his followers at any one time, is, " about five thousand men, besides women 
and children," (Mat. 14 — 21), and this estimate is undoubtedly a great exaggeration. Be- 
sides, it would appear that of those, who sometimes followed him about in the early part of 
his career, nearly all soon abandoned him. If then, those, whom Jesus calls false Christs, 
were so much more successful than himself in gaining adherents, it is in the highest degree 
probable that their works gave evidence, to those who saw them, of greater miraculous power 
than his did. So that if we believe there ever was such a being as a real Messiah, we ought, 
judging from the testimony of the eyewitnesses, (whose testimony alone is good for any thing), 
on every principle of reason, as far as the evidence of miracles is concerned, to believe that 
Jesus was not the actual one — but that the one, who obtained, during his life time, the greatest 
number of followers, was the true one; because these followers, were the eyewitnesses whose 

* Such facts as the above would furnish a complete answer to all the arguments — founded on the im- 
portance of the alleged purpose of establishing in men's minds a belief in a revelation — (supposing such 
arguments to be admissible), that Christians have ever urged in favor of the -probability and propriety of 
miracles; because the very testimony (the Bible), relied on to prove that miracles were employed for that 
purpose, declares also, explicitly and unequivocally, that, at the same time, and among the same people, 
other miracles, equally real, and equally wonderful as far as men's senses could discover, were performed, 
which are not pretended to have any connexion with a revelation, or any other important design. In 
prder, therefore, to support the Bible history of these events, there is just as strong a necessity for arguing 
in support of the probability and propriety of God's giving miraculous power to some individuals for no 
discoverable purpose at all, as in favor of his giving it to others to enable them to convince men of the 
truth of a revelation, because, according to the Bible, he gave it in the former case as certainly as in the 
latter. 

If the Bible be true, it is as certain also that God gave miraculous power to a pool of water, as it is that 
he gave it to Jesus or any of his disciples, (John 5 — 4.) 



20 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

testimony constitutes the evidence in either case, and by following a man they expressed their 
belief in'the reality of his pretended miracles. Of course the witnesses must have been more 
numerous, who could testify to the reality of the miracles of others, than of those of Jesus; 
and we ought certainly to believe the testimony of a large number rather than the testimony 
of a few. 

The number of those, who were not eyewitnesses, but who might believe on a particular 
one of these pretended Messiahs after his death, and simply upon the testimony of others, is 
no evidence at all that one was the real one; because there might be many circumstances, 
which had nothing to do with the reality of the miracles, that would nevertheless make the 
pretended miracles of one believed after his death, when those of another would be forgotten. 
For example, if the followers of one should spread the accounts of his doings, after his death, 
such an one would continue to be believed after his death, when another, whose disciples 
should neglect this step, would naturally be forgotten, although his works might be even many 
times the more wonderful of the two, This was the case with Jesus. He had few followers, 
in his life time, compared with those of others; but some of his followers circulated the story 
of his doings, after his death, and by that means his memory was preserved. 

It appears to me that even what little has now been said, would be sufficient to satisfy men 
that Jesus never performed any real miracles, if they would but judge of the probabilities on 
this subject, as they do on any other subjects of history. But it is not with the Bible as it is 
with other books, in respect of being believed. There are few men, and probably no women, 
who believe it because it is probable, (for they do not know, nor dare they inquire, whether 
or not it be probable), or for any other reason that has any thing like evidence or argument in 
it. They believe it, almost universally, for one, or the other, or both, of these very potent 
reasons, viz: either simply because it is the Bible, or because they expect they should be 
damned if they were to disbelieve it, however improbable it may be — thus virtually charging 
their Maker with being wicked enough to torture men through eternity, for not having believ- 
ed, in this world, what was improbable. That " he that believeth not shall be damned," ap- 
pears to be the strongest of all arguments, in the minds of the many, in support of the Bible. 
It is thus that Christianity, by seizing upon men's fears, and thus making dupes and slaves of 
their understandings, has preserved its credit in their minds, and its power over their reason, 
has brought down with it, to this day, some of that credulity for the marvellous, in which it 
was first established, and has thus prevented men from inquiring, in a rational manner, as 
otherwise the enlightened portion of the world probably would have done, as to what was 
probable, and what improbable, in relation to the designs and government of God. 

Since then a further examination of the subject of miracles is necessary, I will go into an 
examination of the separate evidence of each and every miracle, that Jesus is said to have 
performed, and of which there is any particular account in either of the four narratives of his 
acts and preaching. The number of these is thirty-three, and no more. Some of these arc 
mentioned by one of the narrators, some by two, some by three, and a single one of them by 
the four. There are many other general and indefinite accounts of his miracle?, such as that, 
in particular places, he "cured all manner of diseases," or that " he healed all, who were 
vexed with unclean spirits," or " those who were tormented with plagues," &c. But since 
many of these thirty-three were recorded by Matthew thirty years afterwards*— and as many 
of the same were recorded many years afterward by Mark, who was a follower of Peter, and 
probably knew nothing of Jesus personally. t and by Luke also, who was a citizen of Antioch, 
converted by Paul, and who of course never had any personal knowledge of Jesus, % there can 
be no doubt that these were considered the most remarkable that he was ever supposed to 
perforin; otherwise they would not have been remembered and circulated so as to be the most 
remarkable ones that should come to the knowledge of each of these three different persons. 

Many of these supposed miracles will be attempted to be accounted for, by showing them to 
have been the work of the imagination. Such ones will be examined first, and the others af- 
terward. 

The influence of the imagination upon sick persons is known to be very great, and in many 
cases of modern date, it has been observed and recorded by physicians to have been surpris- 
ing. There are perhaps few adults, who have ever attended a sick person, that have not ob- 
served the sensible and sudden effect of a newly excited hope upon him. All know the impor- 
tance of sustaining the hopes of a sick man. The reason of this, is, that his nervous system 
is then, vastly more than in health, susceptible to the influence of particular states of the 
mind. It is one of the most common observations, in relation to a person dangerously ill, 
that " if his courage be maintained, and he think he shall recover, he will recover, but if he 
think he shall die, he certainly will die." The frequent expression of such opinions shows 
that we are all aware of the influence of the imagination upon the sick, although the philoso- 
phy of its operation is perhaps not known to all who know the fact. 

There is perhaps no man, even at the present day, who, when sick, although he perfectly 
well understood every thing about the power of the imagination, is not nevertheless in a very 

* See Lempriere's Biographical Dictionary, 
f See Newton on the Prophecies Chap. 18. 
j See Lempriere's Biographical Dictionary, also Newton on the Prophecies, Chap. 18. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 21 

great degree under its influence. Physicians understand this principle in physiology, and 
many of them avail themselves of it, by holding out encouragement whenever they can do it 
without running too great a risk of occasioning an injurious effect by a disappointment of the 
expectations thus raised. It requires very little of the excitement of hope to string the nerves 
of a sick man, because they are exceedingly susceptible. Thus many physicians will often 
give to a sick man medicines, which are simple and powerless of themselves, merely for the 
sake of the beneficial influence, to be derived from his imagining that he has taken something 
which is benefitting him. 

We all know, too, how little excitement of the feelings, upon a man, who is sick, and ap- 
parently destitute of all strength, will occasion insanity, and cause him to exhibit wonderful 
power. Now he really has no more strength in his muscles, during his insanity, than he had 
before; but his nervous system has been excited by the operations of his mind, and his latent 
strength thus called out. It is by the operation of the same principle, that other excitements 
of the feelings, as a newly imspired expectation of recovery for example, often calls out the 
latent strength of a sick man to a considerable degree, without making him insane, unless a 
man may be always properly called insane in just so far as his imagination deceives him. 

Further evidence of the power of the imagination to operate upon the sick, and to cure dis- 
eases, is furnished by the following extracts, taken from Rees's Cyclopaedia — article, Imagina- 
tion. 

" In the year 179S, an American, of the name of Perkins, introduced into this country 
" (England) a method of curing diseases, for which he obtained the royal letters patent, by 
" means of two small pieces of metal denominated Tractors. These were applied external- 
ly near the part diseased, and moved about, gently touching the surface only; and thus mul- 
titudes of painful disorders were removed, some most speedily, and some after repeated ap- 
" plications of the metallic points. Pamphlets were published, announcing the wonderful 
" cures accomplished by this simple remedy; and periodical journals and newspapers teemed 
" with evidence of the curative powers of the tractors; insomuch that in a few months they 
" were the subject of general conversation, and scarcely less general use. The religious sect 
" of the Quakers, whose benevolence has been sometimes displayed at the expense of their 
" sagacity, became the avowed and active friends of the tractors; and a public establishment, 
"called the '♦' Perkinean Institution," was formed under their auspices, for the purpose of 
" curing the diseases of the poor, without the expense of drugs or medical advice. Thetrans- 
" actions of this institution were published in pamphlets, in support of the extraordinary effi- 
"cacy of these new instruments. In somewhat less than six years Perkins left the country, 
"in possession, as we have been informed on good authority, of upwards of ten thousand 
" pounds, the contributions of British credulity; and now (1811) the tractors are almost for- 
" gotten. 

" We by no means intend to impeach the veracity, of those, who attested the many extra- 
" ordinary cures perfovmed by the application of the tractors; on the contrary, we have no 
" doubt that many of them were actually accomplished, at least temporarily: after what we 
" have already stated, when treating of animal magnetism (such as the sudden cure of the ar- 
" tist's head-ache, on the bridge, by M. Sigault's gestures), and what we shall proceed to state 
"respecting the effects of counterfeit tractors, it were impossible not to admit the truth and 
" correctness of the majority of the accounts of the efficacy of Perkinism. We must observe, 
" however, that the efficacy w^s founded on the delusion; and had not the scientific world been 
" at that time in a state of comparative ignorance respecting the principle of which Galvani 
" had recently obtained a glance; had they been in total ignorance of that principle, or pos- 
sessed of more than that "little knowledge" of it, which "is a dangerous thing," such an 
" imposture would scarcely have gained ground for a day, among those who were acquainted 
" with the proceedings of "the French Commissioners in the affair of Mesrner.* But Perkins 
" associated the idea of the Galvanic principle, or animal electricity, with the operation of 
" his tractors, by constructing them of two different metals, which the Italian philosopher had 
" shown to be necessary to excite the operation of the agent, which he had discovered: and 
" the obscurity, which hung over this subject, left a new field for hypothesis, and the anoma- 
" lous character of the facts contributed to induce even philosophers to listen to the rela- 
" tion. 

" But Dr. Haygarth, to whom his profession and his country are deeply indebted for more 
" important services, suspected the true source of the phenomena produced by the tractors, 
"from the first promulgation of the subject. Recollecting the developement of the animal 
" magnetism, he suggested to Dr. Falconer, abo&t the end of the year 179S, when thetractors 
" had already obtained a high reputation at Bath, even among persons of rank and under- 
" standing, that the nature of the operation of the tractors might be correctly ascertained by a 
" pair of false tractors, resembling the real ones: and it was resolved to put the matter to the 
" test of experiment in the general hospital of that city. They therefore contrived two ivood- 
" en tractors, of nearly the same shape as the metallic, and painted to resemble them in col- 
" or. Five cases were chosen of chronic rheumatism, in the ancle, knee, wrist and hip: one 
" of the patients had also gouty pains. All the affected joints, except the last, were swelled, 
" and all of them had been ill for several months. 

* The pretended discoverer of animal magnetism. 



22 the dfjst's reply. 

" On the 7th, of January, 1799, the wooden tractors were employed. All the five patients, 
" except one, assured us that their pain was relieved; and three much benefitted by the first 
" application of this remedy. One felt his knee warmer, and he could walk much better, as 
" he showed us with great satisfaction. One was easier for nine hours, and till he went to 
"bed, when the pain returned. One had a tingling sensation for two hours. The wooden 
" tractors were drawn over the skin so as to touch it in the slightest manner. Such is the 
"wonderful force of the imagination. 

« Next day, January 8th, the true metallic tractors of Perkins were employed exactly in 
" like manner, and with similar effects. All the patients were in some measure, but not more 
" relieved by the second application, except one, who received no benefit from the former 
" operation, and who was not a proper subject for the experiment, having no existing pain, 
« but only stiffness in her ancle. They felt, (as they fancied) warmth, but in no greater de- 
" decree than on the former day." Of the imagination as a cause, and as a cure of the disor- 
" ders of the body, exemplified by fictitious tractors and epidemical convulsions. By John 
" Haygarth, M. D. F. R. S. &c. Bath, 1800. 

" Such were the experiments attempted with the view of ascertaining the nature of Perkin- 
" ism. But Dr. Haygarth's pamphlet contained an account of still more decisive trials made 
" in the Bristol infirmary, by Mr. Smith, one of the surgeons to that establishment. This 
"gentleman first operated with two leaden tractors, on Tuesday, April 19th, on a patient, 
" who had been some time in the Infirmary, " with a rheumatic affection of the shoulder, 
" which rendered his arm perfectly useless." In the course of six minutes no other effect fol- 
lowed the application of these pieces of lead than a warmth upon the skin: nevertheless 
" the patient informed Mr. Smith, on the following day, that " he had received so much bene- 
" fit, that it had enabled him to lift his hand from his knee, which he had in vain several times 
" attempted on the Monday evening, as the whole ward witnessed." But although it was 
" thus proved that the patent tractors possessed no specific powers independent of simple 
" metals, he thought it advisable to lay aside metallic points, lest the proofs might be deemed 
" less complete. Two pieces of wood, properly shaped and painted, were next made use of; 
" and in order to add solemnity to the farce, Mr. Barton held in his hand a stop watch, whilst 
" Mr. Lax minuted the effects produced. In four minutes the man raised his hand several 
"inches, and he had lost also the pain in his shoulder, usually experienced wJien attempting 
" to lift any thing. He continued to undergo the operation daily, and with progressive good 
" effect, for on the 25th, he could touch the mantle-piece. 

" On the 27th," Mr. Smith continues, "in the presence of Dr. Lovell an* 7 Mr. J. P. Noble, 
" two common iron nails, disguised with sealing wax, were substituted fa' the pieces of ma- 
" hogany before used. In three minutes the same patient " felt something moving from his 
" arm to his hand, and soon after he touched the Board of Rules, which hung a foot above 
" the fire place. This patient at length so far recovered, that he couli carry coals, &c. and 
"use his arm sufficiently to assist the nurse: yet previous to the use o/ the spurious tractors, 
" " he could no more lift his hand from his knee than if a hundred weight were upon it, or a 
" nail driven through it," as he declared in the presence of several gentlemen. The fame of 
" this case brought applications in abundance, indeed it must be confessed, that it was more 
" than sufficient to act upon weak minds, and induce a belief th(?t these pieces of wood and 
" iron were endowed with peculiar virtues." See Dr. Haygartbs Pamphlet, p. 8. 

" Many other equally striking instances of the curative operation of the imagination, when 
" excited by the sham tractors, might be quoted from the pamshlet in question. ***** 

" After having perused this abundant evidence of the powers of the imagination, hot only 
" in producing various affections of the body, but in removing others which exist, we can have 
" no difficulty in crediting many relations of cures performed by persons supposed to be gifted 
" with extraordinary powers, or employing other pretended agents, all of which may be refer- 
" red to the same common principle. One of the mo&t singular instances of this kind, both 
" from the number of cures performed, and the rank, /earning and character of the persons, 
" who attested them, is to be found in the person of Valentine Greatraks, who flourished in 
" the latter part of the 17th century. 

" The proceedings of this pious and apparently -sincere man are very interesting, as afford- 
" ing a history of the power of imagination and confidence over certain disorders of the body, 
" He was the son of an Irish gentleman of gooi education and property, who died in his 
" childhood. Disgusted with the religious and political contentions of his country in the time 
" of Cromwell, he retired from the world, apparently in a state of melancholy derangement 
" and bad health, which had nearly terminated fatally. On recovering, he became one of 
" the puritans of the day, and after havingacted sometime as a magistrate, he had " an im- 
" pulse of strange persuasion" in his mind, which continued to present itself, whether he was 
"in public or in private, sleeping or waking, "that God had given him the blessing 
"of curing the king's evil." Accordingly he commenced the practice of touching for this 
"disease about the year 1662, which be continued for three years; at this time the ague be- 
" came very epidemical, and the same impulse within him suggested "that there was bestow- 
" ed upon him the gift of curing the ague," which he also practised with success, by laying 
" his hands on the patients. At length he found his power extended to epilepsy and paralytic 
"disorders, &c; but he candidly acknowledges that many were not cured by his touch. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 



23 



" Nevertheless the unbounded confidence in bis powers, and consequently the facility with 
" which the imaginations of the ignorant would be acted upon, must be manifest from the fol- 
lowing statement, which he sent to Mr Boyle. ''Great multitudes from divers places ro- 
" sorted to me, so that I could have no time to follow my own occasions, nor enjoy the company 
"of my family and friends 5 whereupon I set three days in the week apart (from six in the 
"morning till six at night,} to lay my hands on all that came, and so continued for some 
" months at home. But the multitudes which came daily were so great, that the neighboring 
" towns Were not able to accommodate them; whereon, for the good of others, 1 left my 
" home, and went to Youghall, where great multitudes resorted to me, not only of the in- 
" habitants, but also out of England; so that the magistrates of the town told me, that they 
" were afraid that some of the sick people that came out of England might bring the infec- 
" tion into the place: whereon I retired again to my house at AH'ane, where (as at Youg- 
" hall,) I observed three days, by laying my hands on all that came, whatsoever the diseases 
" were (and many were cured, and many were not;) so that my stable, barn and malt house 
" were filled with sick people of all diseases almost, ike." 

" We shall not extend this article by quoting the histories of cases certified by several phy- 
sicians, as well as by divines and philosophers; among whom were the names of Robert 
" Boyle, Dr Cudworth, Dr. Whichcot, &c. We may remark, that some of the cases of 
" headache and rheumatism resemble most accurately those which were cured by the spuri- 
" ous tractors abovementioned; and that the hand of Greatrakscan only be conceived to have 
" operated in the same way. The influence of the imagination was likewise obvious in sev- 
" eral convulsive affections, in the same manner as in the woman at Passy, who fell into the 
" crisis before the magnetism was applied^ Greatraks mentions several poor people that 
" went from England to him, "and amongst the rest, two that had the falling sickness, who 
" no sooner saio me, than they fell into their Jits immediately ;" and he restored them, he af- 
" firms, by putting his hands upon them. Nay, he tells us, that even the touch of his glove 
" had driven many kinds of pains away, and removed strange fits in women; and that the 
" stroking of his hand or his glove had, in his opinion, and that of other persons present, 
" driven several devils, or evil spirits, out of a woman, one after the other, "every one hav- 
" ing been like to choke her (when it came up to her throat, )before it went forth." Now this 
" whole description contains a pretty accurate picture of an ordinary hysterical fit, with its 
" attendant globus, terminating with the discharge of flatus. 

"About the same period, a Capauchin friar, whose name was Francisco Bagnon, was fa- 
"mousin Italy for the same gift of healing, by the touch of the hands only; and was attended 
" wherever he went by great multitudes of sick people, upon whom he operated numerous 
" and surprising cures, which were deemed true miracles. So general was the belief in 
" his curative powers, that even a prince of Parma, who had labored under a febrile disease 
"for the space of six months, was induced to apply to him, and was immediately cured by his 
"voice only. The prince himself, and many others that were present, afterwards bore pub- 
lic testimony to the fact." * * # * * * * _ * 

" But it is unnecessary to enumerate the individuals, the De Mainaducs, the Prescotts, &.c. 
" who have at various times been distinguished by the possession of various occult methods 
"of healing the sick. The practice has occasionally prevailed in almost all ages; and we 
" have seen, in the details of experiments above related, that the faculty of the imagination, 
"in certain habits and conditions of the body, and especially in the irritable female constitu- 
" tion, is actually capable of producing all those effects on the corporeal frame, which have 
"been deemed the result of occult agency and extraordinary powers." 

"Admitting this, then, as an established principle of the human constitution, arid making 
"due allowances for the exaggerations and misrepresentations of ignorance and superstition, 
" we are enabled to give a rational explanation of many historical relations, which have been 
"considered as altogether fabulous, or as direct violations of truth. We are well aware of 
"the facility with which the imagination is excited in an uninformed person, and more par- 
ticularly in an age of profound ignorance, which is, for that reason, commonly an age of 
"superstition. We know, too, that in the middle ages, when every form of science was al- 
"most unknown, and the laws of nature had not been investigated, the smallest discovery in 
"natural philosophy, chemistry, or astronomy, was deemed the result of supernatural com- 
" munication with the world of spirits; and the discoverer or possessor of the knowledge was 
" looked upon as a being gifted with supernatural powers. In such a state of the human 
" mind, when natural philosophy, meagre as it was, was disguised with the name, and clothed 
" with all the supposed agencies of magic; and when every person, with a little more knowl- 
edge than his neighbors, was master of so many magnet so many tractors, by which he 
" could rule the imaginations of the multitude; it cannot be the subject of our wonder, that 
" the magician's rod (or the philosopher's cane) should produce such mighty operations, or 
" that a scrap of his writing should be a remedy for many maladies. These only executed 
" what was afterwards performed by M. Deslon's extended fingers, and Valentine Greatrak's 
"glove! The effects, then, of the incantations, amulets, and all the arts of magic, witch- 
craft and astrology, by which the more artful pretenders to superior knowledge imposed 
"upon the people, may be allowed to have actually occurred, and to have been the resul of 



24 THE deist's reply. 

" natural causes; and they are plainly referrible to one common source, with those of animal 
" magnetism, Perkinism, and various other modifications of the imagination in fetters. 

" It is scarcely necessary to add, that during the same periods of ignorance and supersti- 
tion, those extremely pious and comparatively learned persons, who have been enrolled in 
"the catalogue of saints, must necessarily have obtained the most complete veneration and 
" confidence from the multitude; and hence, after their death, every relic of their bodies or 
"clothing, the shrines in which they were entombed, fragments of the instruments of their 
" execution (in cases of martyrdom.) and every other object that could excite, by association, 
"those reverential feelings, usually called up by a contemplation of their characters, would 
" become so many agents upon the imaginations, by which all the extraordinary changes in 
"the animal economy above described, might be effectually produced. Thus we cannot 
"doubt that there is much foundation for the histories of recovery from various diseases, oc- 
casioned by removing the sick to the tombs of celebrated worthies, or placing them before 
"the statues and images of these persons, or by touching them with nails taken from the 
" coffins, or rings from the fingers, or the bones of the fingers themselves of these saints, or 
" by the influence of an infinity of relics of this sort, which cannot be supposed to possess 
"less power over a superstitious mind, than the painted tractors of a surgeon, or the glove of 
"an enthusiast." 

In the New Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, (Am. Ed.) in the article on Animal Magnetism, we 
find the following, among other testimony to the power of the imagination in curing diseases. 

The pamphlet of Dr. Haygarth, on the metallic tractors, " amply confirms the general prin- 
" ciple, that the power of the imagination in the cure of diseases is almost without limits; so 
"that, except a complete and sudden alteration of physical structure, or the restoration of 
"lost parts, there is scarcely any change so considerable, which may not be effected through 
" its intervention. It not only possesses an indefinite power over what are styled nervous 
"diseases, where the primary affection consists, as far as we can judge, in some change in 
"the action of the brain and its appendages ; but even diseases of the sanguiferous system, 
" and of the different organic functions, appear to be by no means exempted from its in- 
" fluence." 

" In proof of his hypothesis, and of the power of magnetism over the human body, Mes- 
" mer" (the pretended discoverer of animal magnetism,) "and his adherents confidently ap- 
" pealed to their success in the cure of diseases; and so great did this appear, and so unques- 
tionable was the evidence, on which it seemed to be founded, that, for some time, scarce- 
" ly any opposition was made to it, and it was regarded as the most unreasonable scepticism 
" to doubt of its reality." 

And yet after this method of curing diseases had had this astonishing success, and had ob- 
tained this astonishing reputation, it was completely ascertained, by experiments made upon 
persons blindfolded, and upon those who doubted the system, (whose imaginations of course 
would not be so easily affected), that the previous cures had all been but the work of the 
imagination. These experiments were conducted by nine Commissioners, men of learning 
and science, appointed by the French King in 17S4 to investigate the matter. Of this board 
of Commissioners, Dr Franklin, then American Minister at Paris, was one. 

Many other cases, of wonderful cures wrought by the imagination, are cited in the article 
in Rees' Cyclopedia, from which a part of the foregoing extracts are taken. But enough 
have been quoted to establish, beyond cavil, I trust, that the imagination is capable of exerting 
a sudden and very exciting power over the nervous system, and of thus producing, what, by 
the ignorant and superstitious, would be considered miraculous effects in the restoration of 
the sick. 

Now there probably have seldom, if ever, been causes in existence calculated to operate 
so strongly upon the imagination of a sick man, without making him actually insane, as were 
those which must have operated upon such as, for the time, thought themselves cured by Je- 
sus; and perhaps the world never furnished a people more easily to be operated upon by the 
method and pretensions of Jesus, than were those among whom he preached. They were 
simple and superstitious to a degree hardly to be conceived of by us, as is proved by the fact 
of their running all agog after so many of those pretended miracle-workers, that infested 
Judea at that time. 

The nation of the Jews at large, believed themselves the peculiar favorites of God; they 
believed that God often sent messengers to them, and in order to prove such to be his messen- 
gers, gave them miraculous powers. About the time of Jesus they expected a remarkable 
one to be called the Messiah. They supposed he would possess these powers in an unusual 
degree. Those, who followed Jesus, and supposed themselves benefitted by him, believed 
him to be this Messiah. It was evidently necessary, in order to be benefitted by his power, 
that they should believe, in advance, that he possessed it, as appears from Matthew 13 — 59, 
"and he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." At another time, (Mat. 
9 — 2S and 29,) when two blind men wished to be cured, he asked them, "Believe ye that I am 
able to do this? They said "yea, Lord." Then says he, "according to your faith, be it unto 
you." The same inference is fairly deducible from numerous other passages and circum- 
stances. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 25 

Keeping these facts in our minds, let us look at the cure of the palsy, as described by 
Matthew, (9— 2 to 8,) Mark (2—1 to 12,) and Luke (5—17 to 26)— by Luke the most mi- 
nutely. 

Imagine Jesus surrounded by a multitude, who came to him from every quarter, who be- 
lieved him to be the Messiah, and to have miraculous power; imagine him to have been going 
from place to place, preaching as if by the authority of God — the report going before him 
that he cured all manner of diseases wherever he went; imagine so great a crowd about him 
Jhat the man sick of the palsy could not be carried in at the door of the house, and that it 
was necessary to uncover the roof to let him down where Jesus was; imagine this palsied 
man having full faith, from the moment he heard of Jesus, in his ability to cure him; imagine 
him carried on a bed by four, to the place where Jesus was, full of the highest expectations; 
imagine him waiting, and witnessing the crowd around full of the same extravagant expecta- 
tions with himself, witnessing also the preparations being made to let him down through the 
roof of the house, to bring him into the presence of the wonderful being who was to re- 
store him at a word — (during such a scene, if he had a spark of nervous vitality in him, it 
must have been set most powerfully. at work;) imagine him at length, laid in the presence of 
this messenger from God, this Messiah; imagine Jesus pardoning his sins with the assumed 
authority of God; imagine him telling the bystanders, in the hearing of the sick man, that he 
could cause him to rise up and walk as easily as forgive his sins; (certainly, at this time, the 
man's nervous system must have been wrought to an extraordinary degree of excitement, if 
he had life in him) — then hear Jesus pronounce, in his oracular and confident manner, "That 
ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee, arise; 
and take up thy couch, and go thy way into thy house;" and is there any thing strange in the 
fact that he should receive strength, should rise up and walk? or that he should take With 
him his bed (such a sack of straw as it probably was, judging from the circumstance of its 
being let down through the roof of the house) ? To my mind there is nothing in all this, 
which cannot be accounted for on the well known principles of physiology, even supposing 
the restoration to have been a permanent one. Here are plain aud obvious causes, sufficient 
to produce the effect, without any supernatural agency whatever. * 

If these views are correct, here was no miracle at all, even supposing the man really to 
have had the palsy. But suppose (a thing to my mind exceedingly probable) that this man 
only imagined himself to have the palsy — or that he had some slight infirmity, which he, know- 
ing nothing of diseases, as the ignorant and simple people of that age and nation probably 
did, brought himself to believe to be the palsy; — and what sort of a miracle do we have here 
to prove that Jesus possessed supernatural powers? I say it is probable that the disease was 
not a real palsy, because ignorant, superstitious and timid men, such as were those among 
whom Jesus preached, generally magnify a slight infirmity into a grievous disease, particu- 
larly if there is any person going about the country pretending to cure diseases in a wonder- 
ful manner. Persons, who live within the circuit of such a man's travels, generally have 
diseases more malignant, and more in number, than the rest of the human family. 

Besides, Luke, after relating the fact of Jesus's being where he was, of there beinsr a great 
assemblage, See, says, that a man was brought, who "was taken with a palsy." This lan- 
guage naturally conveys the idea that the man was taken just at that time, and if so, there 
are a thousand chances against one that these simple men, who would make something mar- 
vellous out of every circumstance that could, by the aid of an enormous gullibility, be made 
so; who probably knew no more about % diseases than they did about astronomy, and who 
would be imposed on by any numbness of a limb, or cramp of a muscle, were mistaken about 
the character of the attack, rather than that it should be the real palsy; because that is an 
illness, that very rarely occurs. The patient himself too, would be as likely to be mistaken 
as the bystanders, and if he thought he had the palsy, (and if such a suggestion had been 
made, he would be very likely to think so,) and that Jesus would take the trouble to display 
his miraculous power upon him, he would most surely keep up the appearance of a palsied 
man as well as he could. 

Further, if the bare conversation, of those around, about Jesus performing strange cares, 
should make a simple man imagine he had some disease which needed curing, when he had 
no real illness or difficulty at all, it would be no very remarkable instance of the power of the 
imagination. 

Reader, decide upon this testimony before you go farther. Is there, or is there not, here, 
unequivocal evidence that a genuine miracle was performed? Decide upon this case separ- 
ately, and independently of all others. Each alleged miracle must stand solely upon its own 
evidence; for even if Jesus performed any real miracles, there is no doubt the country would 
be full of stories about miracles which were not real, and therefore we are not to believe 
there was a real miracle in any particular case, if there be a discoverable inconclusiveness in 
the evidence relating exclusively to that case. I will answer for the reader, that there is not 
room for even a decent pretence that here was a miracle. 

*In further support of the reasonableness of this explanation, I quote the authority of Dr. Combe, who 
says, in his work on Physiology, that "so powerful, indeed, is the nervous stimulus, "that examples hfve 
occurred of strong mental emotions having instantaneously given life and vigor to paralytic limbs." This 
extract may be found in No. 7] , Harpers' Family Library , page 112. 
4 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

26 

™, a .nn^Pfl miracle of Jesus, that will be examined, is related by Matthew, (S~- 

The second spposedmnac,eot ^u s . g ^ ^ Qf rt wife , g 

14 and 1 ^ r ^Ytorie^re ka^quUe 60 wide a latitude for doubt as to the reality and sever- 
morll - 1 '' l £2£££ ^/oA&^BimXbefegs probably did not know a fever from any other 
lt ?f t he disease^ b ^^^Xd^avs it was -a great fever." But Luke was not there, and 
SyTeFo^L ':"S&s, several years afterwards, the truth might have been 
poss, ,|y bcioie tnesioiv 1 ec iselv such language as one would use, who wished to 

* KtlSt^ a SUSSES wrought when the supposed miracle was. of such 
?™rt \St^^^^^-^^Vt^^^ M * as "great," in this instance, inserted, 
^^^■^^•^^^^ atonce that there WaS d ° ubtleSS n ° miraClG 

flt Bui independently of the word -great," Luke's whole account goes to show thatthis fever 
was all" na-fnarv" and brought on (as diseases sometimes are now) by the vicinity of a phy- 
liaf wo was bought able° to cure any thing. He says that Jesus -entered into Simon s 
hrse'^andTtairiediateVy he adds, "that Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever " 
It wou'ld appear from this account that she was taken after -Jesus had entered the house. If she 
were thus suddenly taken and thus suddenly cured, both the sickness and the cure were un- 
doubtedly the work ofthe imagination. ; ' 

But supposing the affair not to have been quite so farcical as it probably was, and suppos- 
ing that when Jesus entered the house, she thought herself somewhat ill, and lay on the bed, 
and that when he "stood over her and rebuked the fever," pretending to have miraculous 
power she felt able to rise and do what she is said to have done, still here is no evidence fit to 
be thought of to prove a miracle. From the greatness of the number of sick, whom Jesus is 
«aid to have cured, it is evident that the diseases were either trivial or entirely imaginary; 
and this was undoubtedly a case of the common kind, and one that could have been cured as 
well by the sight of Paul's handkerchief, or by the shadow of Peter, as those that were thus 
cured. (Acts 19— 12— and 5—15 and 16.) " - - 

The third case to be examined is that of the woman, who had "an issue of blood," (me- 
norrha-ia undoubtedly.) It is related by Matthew (9—20 to 22,) Mark (5—25 to 34,) and 
Luke (8—43 to 48.) This case affords an excellent illustration of the manner in which mira- 
cles were wrought upon the sick. This woman not only believed that Jesus had miraculous 
power to cure diseases, but she even believed that a miracle would be wrought upon her sim- 
ply by her touching his garment, without his knowledge, and, of course, w ithout his power 
being exerted. And so the event proved, if Mark and Luke are to be believed. It was the 
simple touching of his garment, as they say, that healed her. Mark says that "straightway" 
after touching, "she felt in her body that she was made whole of that plague," and also, that 
after Jesus had made the sagacious discovery that "virtue had gone out of him," and inquired 
who touched him, the woman "knowing what was" (already) "done in her," came forward 
and told him the truth. He then told her that her "faith" had (already) made her whole. 

Luke also says that the issue of blood staunched immediately upon her touching his gar- 
ment. Then he goes on to relate, that Jesus made the inquiry, who had touched him, and 
that the woman then declared to him, before them all, that she had touched him, and "how 
she was" (had been) "healed immediately." There is no room to quibble upon this language. 
Either his garments possessed miraculous power, or it was her imagination that healed her, 
or she was not healed at all — for though an Evangelist say it, and though Jesus himself may 
have said it, (which is not very likely,) no reasonable, being can believe that he was filled w ith 
a sort of miraculous "virtue," which, when a person touched his garment, passed out of him, 
as electricity passes out of a cylinder, and that he would feel it leave him, as he is represent- 
ed to have done, and that too when he did not know beforehand that any person was going to 
touch his garment. 

But — to throw this disgusting nonsense about his "virtue" out of the question— there is a 
rational and obvious explanation of this matter. It is this. Her faith, in the elficacy of sim- 
ply touching his garment, was so strong, that when she had touched it, she immediately did 
imagine, or did "feel in her body," that she was healed, and told the bystanders so. They 
took her word that it was really so, without ever troubling themselves afterward to ascertain 
whether she were permanently healed. There were too many of these cures going on before 
their eyes for them to inquire a second time in relation to one, which they supposed had once 
been well performed. From the moment of the supposed cure, the story would circulate, 
and these narrators afterwards recorded it as it came to them — having probably never heard 
of the condition of the woman after the time of the transaction; yet not doubting that there 
were both a permanent cure and a miracle. 

The fourth case, which will be examined, is that of the man, who was said to have a with- 
ered hand. It is related by Matthew (12—10 to 13,) Mark (3—1 to 6,) and Luke (6—6 to 
11.) Independent of the improbability that a miracle was ever wrought on earth, there are 
two palpable ones against the truth of this story. Oae is, that a withered limb is met with so 
rarely, that the chances are as an hundred to one, that those ignorant persons would call a 
limb withered, when it only had some slight affection, rather than that it should be in reality 
withered. Another improbability of the change, in the man's power to use his hand, being 
so great as to afford any evidence of miraculous power, arises from the circumstance, that of 



**T 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 27 

the Scribes and Pharisees, who were among the most enlightened part of the community, and 
of course the le;ist likely to be imposed on, in any case of an attempted or pretended miracle, 
there were some present, and they, when they saw the act which others supposed to be a mir- 
acle, were enraged at Jesus for what be had (lone. The narrators of this event, attribute their 

anger to the fact that this act was done on the Sabbath day. Hut it is most manifestly absurd to 
SUppose that men, such as they undoubtedly were, could look on and see a man's hand, that 
was actually withered, restored and made whole by a word, and then have the hardihood to 
attempt violence, or plot mischief against the being who had done it. Men are not such mon- 
sters. But if the fact was, as all the probability of the case goes to show it to have been, viz, 
that in consequence of some slight infirmity, this simple man imagined his hand to be wither- 
ed, and had not used it as usual, but, when commanded by Jesus, in whose miraculous power 
he had confidence, to stretch it forth, he used a little more effort than he was accustomed to, 
and stetched it out, and then, that many of the more ignorant ones, such as his disciples, 
should say a miracle hail been wrought, it is perfectly natural that the Scribes and Pharisees 
should be enraged at seeing men thus duped by a fanatic and mere pretender. 

Jesus made few or no converts among the enlightened part of the very nation that he pre- 
tended to be sent more especially to convert. Instead of working his miracles freely before 
such that they might be convinced, he, when in another instance, they had asked him to show 
them a sign — apparently for the express purpose of enabling them to determine whether he were 
the Messiah — called them (probably not to their face however) a wicked and adulterous gen- 
eration for seeking a sign, by which they might ascertain that fact, (Mat. 16 — 4.) He was 
also continually fomenting the most narrow, illiberal and spiteful prejudices against them, in 
the minds of his ignorant followers. Such conduct, on his part, can be accounted for only by 
the fact, that when they saw, with their own eyes, those acts, which he called miracles, they, in- 
stead of being satisfied that he was the Messiah, were satisfied that he was an impostor. 

The Bible represents the Jews as having been a people, upon whom God had bestowed pe- 
culiar privileges, with a view of making them the depositaries of the true religion, and of pre- 
paring them for the reception of the Messiah. Now if these representations in the Bible were 
true, and if Jesus were the Messiah, whom God had been preparing the minds of the Jews to re- 
ceive, it is absolutely absurd to suppose that they would not have been the very first to have 
been convinced — and the fact, that they were not convinced, can be accounted for only by sup- 
posing, either that God was defeated and disappointed in his attempts to prepare them to re- 
ceive the Messiah, or that Jesus was not the Messiah. 

But to return. After Jesus had performed this supposed miracle, "he withdrew himself 
from thence," (evidently through fear of the Jews,) "and charged" the people that had followed 
him, "that they should not make him known," (Mat. 12 — 14 to 16.) Very dignified conduct, in- 
deed, for a Son of God, or a Saviour of the world, and one too who could work miracles! But 
such was /us course continually ; and such cowardice reveals the character of the man, and 
shows us how much credit is due to his pretensions. If he had really been what he claimed to 
be, or had had any thing like moral courage, he would have better sustained the character he 
had assumed, and would have scorned that practice of skulking, which he so often adopted — 
another still more contemptible instance of which, related by John (7 — 1 to 10,) has been before 
referred to. 

The fifth case, that related by John (5 — 2 to 9) only, of the "impotent man" at the pool of 
Bethesda, was probably like the last. The man, as simple ones generally, and others some- 
times, do, probably magnified his infirmity, in his imagination, to a degree beyond the reality, 
and when he was commanded to rise and walk, he made more effort, and walked better, than 
usually, and that was a miracle. 

The man evidently had full faith that he should be restored by being put into the pool, as is 
shown by the fact of his being at the pool for that purpose; and if he had been put in precise- 
ly at the time when he supposed the angel had troubled the waters, he would probably have 
been restored in the same manner that others were. But if he had been put in at any other 
time, he would have received no benefit — and for the very good reason, that he would not 
have expected to receive any. 

The facts that a "great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt and withered," waited 
at this pool for the angel to trouble the waters; that every one was cured of whatever disease 
he had, by being the first then to step in; and that none were cured, except such as stepped in 
first, prove that both the diseases and the cures were entirely, or in a great degree, imagina- 
ry. There was apparently just as much efficacy in the supposed troubling of "the pool by an 
angel, and in the diseased person's being the Jirst to step in after that had been done, as there 
was in the command of Jesus to rise up and walk, and no more. They both affected the ima- 
ginations of the superstitious, and that effected all the cures there were in the cases. 

Here too we are enabled to see how much of a miracle Jesus performed in restoring the 
" withered hand," for John says that the " withered" could be restored by stepping into this 
pool, after the angel had troubled it, and before any other had been in. If then the withered, 
or those who supposed themselves withered, could in any case be cured by the power of the 
imagination, they would as likely be when Jesus pretended to work a miracle upon them, as 
when they stepped into the pool. 




-. THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

rru ■ , ma tnnr.p too that there were so many withered people, as it is intimated by John 

£ ZS& I'hln^vt wUbevef r 'aim^t: have been rea Uy so, as the one X* 

^teth S c«l t0 .h« V of?te r w^o,w B o had "a spirit of Infirmity," being - bound by 
c, ; ,, 1. i„.„ J fluke 13— 11 to 16); also the seventh case, the cure of one leper, 
SK'lS 57l£3* 1-40 to 44, Luke 5 ; -12 to 14); also the eighth case, the cure of ten 
fenersl CLuke 17—12 to 19), (who ever saw ten lepers at a time?) also the ninth case, the 
cm 
till 

ime%etL7ned"to"tb»nk7io8 foVwhat'he had done, the nine did not take that trouble. 

We here have an opportunity to see on how slight a pretence these narrators would make 
tin a story of a genuine, undoubted miracle. These lepers are represented as standing afar 
ok" from Jesus, and calling to him to be healed. He simply tells them to go to the priest 
They go, and nine of them do not return. Yet Luke says the whole were cleansed Now, 
if they did not return, how did he know whether they were cleansed or not: Why, he infer- 
red they must have been, and related it for a fact that they were, although he knew nothing 
about it. . , , 

There is no reason for supposing that any of these cures were any better ones than those 
effected at the pool, and it is clear that the cures at the pool were all the work of the imagina- 
tion, or that the diseases themselves were so, and that there was no efficacy in the waters; 
because, if there had been any efficacy in the waters, people would have learned that the 
second one, who should step in after the gurgling of the water, could be healed as well as the 
first. If the imagination cured, at the pool, diseases, that were supposed to be real, the per- 
sons, whom Jesus cured, it is reasonable to suppose, had no diseases more real, or more diffi- 
cult of cure, than the others, and were restored, or apparently restored, solely by being made 
to imagine themselves miraculously operated upon. 

There are four different cases recorded of the cure of blind persons, viz: one in Matthew 
(9—27 to 30), where two were cured; one in Mark (3—22 to 26), where one was cured; one 
in John (9—1 to 7), where one was cured; one in Matthew (20—30 to 34), Mark (10—46 to 
52), and Luke (13—35 to 43), where one, according to Mark and Luke, and two, according 
to Matthew, were cured. The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the last case, refer 
to the same transaction, as appears by the context — for it took place, as they all say, when 
Jesus was near Jericho; and the similarity of the language, quoted by all, as having been used 
by the blind person or persons, confirms the fact. True it is, these cautious and credible his- 
torians disagree as to the number cured; but in relating so probable facts as miracles, such a 
slight discrepancy does not at all impair the credibility of the men, a sto all important particu- 
lars. Such a disagreement is not, in fact, at all material, for blind men in those days, judging 
from the Bible, were nearly as frequent as those who could see. 

These also were probably cured in the same way as were those "blind" persons, who, 
John says, (5 — 3 and 4)., were cured at the pool of Bethesda — and they were probably just as 
blind as those, and no more so. How did it happen that the blind were so numerous? Was 
the blindness real, feigned, imaginary, total or partial? To give a correct answer to this last 
question, it is only necessary to take into consideration the number of those called blind, and 
the manner in which those at the pool were cured. 

Some of these blind men also seem to have had a power of locomotion rather unusual, to 
say the least, in really blind persons. On one occasion, (Mat. 9 — 27, 23), " two blind men 
followed Jesus, and when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him." On 
another occasion (John 9—7) he told the blind man to "go, wash in the pool of Siloam," 
and the blind man " went his way." 

In some cases it appears that Jesus cured the blind on certain conditions. For example, 
in one case (Mat. 9—23 and 29), he required of the blind men that they should believe, in ad- 
vance, that he was " able" to restore their sight, and consented to heal them only in propor- 
tion to their faith. It requires but half an eye to see that the object of this condition was, to 
have something to attribute his failure to, in case his miraculous power should not " work 
well." He, in that case, would unquestionably have said " O ye of little faith, why did ye 
doubt?" and would thus have made those asses believe that the failure was owing to their 
doubts. In other instances he used more jugglery and ceremony than would seem to be ne- 
cessary, if he were a real miracle worker. In the case related by John (9—6 and 7), " he 
spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eves of the blind man with 
the clay, and said to him, go, wash in the pool of Siloam." In the" case, which is related by 
Mark only (3—22 to 26), he led the man out of the town to do it; he then spit on his eyes, and 
put his hands on him, and then asked him if he could see. The man could not then see 
clearly, although he could see well enough to discover that a man looked like a tree. Jesus 
then put his hands upon his eyes again, and bade him look up! whereupon the man saw dis- 
tinctly. Jesus then commanded him, " neither to go into the town, nor tell it to anv in the 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 29 

town" — a very singular command to be given by one, who was working real miracles in order 
to prove to the world at large that he was the Messiah. 

We, of course, cannot say absolutely that there could not have been real miracles performed 
here; but, if there were, any but " blind men" can see that they were not wrought in a work- 
manlike ntanner. 

The next case, being the fourteenth, that will be examined, is that of the alleged restora- 
tion of the daughter of Jairus from the dead, and is related by Matthew (9— IS to 26), Mark 
(5 — 22 to 43), and Luke (S — 41 to 56). Now, supposing the story true, that the child arose, 
when Jesus "took her by the hand," that does not prove that a miracle was performed, he- 
cause we do not know that she was dead. These narrators say only what is equivalent to 
saying, that those in the house believed her dead; but it would appear, from Luke's account, 
that after Jesus had seen the child, he said she was not dead, but that she slept. 

The child, say the accounts, was twelve years old. How often is it that children of that 
age have fits, which, for a short time, cause them to appear dead, and are, immediately after- 
ward, restored to health? How soon, after Jesus went into the room, she arose, we cannot 
know, because those who give us the story, did not see the transaction — they expressly say 
that, of his followers, only Peter, James and John were suffered to go with him. Whether 
Jesus lifted her up, as he did Simon's wife's mother, we do not know, but there is ground for 
the strongest presumption that he did, because " he took her by the hand." 

The most rational supposition that can be formed from the three disagreeing, indefinite and 
and carelessly told stories, which come from men who did not see the transaction, is, that the 
child had a fit, (perhaps only a common fainting fit), and lay apparently dead at the time the 
father ran for Jesus; and that when he arrived at the house, and before he went into the room 
where the child was, those, that had been in the room, but had then come out, told him that 
she was dead; but that, by the time he had come to the child, the fit had left her, and she lay 
asleep; and that then, in the course of the time he remained in the room, (how long that 
might be is uncertain), he spoke to her, took her by the hand and lifted her up, and that she 
then had in a considerable degree recovered. If such were the case, the story has come to us 
in just the shape we should suppose such a story would, coming, as this does, from men, who 
did not see any thing that they relate, but who honestly believed, from what they heard, that 
a miracle was performed. 

But there are two or three circumstances, which render it extremely doubtful whether there 
was any thing in this occurrence, which, to the eyes of the actual witnesses, appeared even so 
marvellous as the case, above supposed, would have been likely to do. One is, that Jesus, 
when they came to him first, and told him the child was dead, would permit but three of his 
disci pies to go in with him; and after the transaction (whatever it might be) was over, he 
charged them, and the parents also, to say nothing of it to any one. Another link in this chain 
of suspicious circumstances, is, that John, who, as the others say, was an eye-witness, says 
not a syllable about the matter. Now since Jesus would permit but three of his disciples to 
go in, and charged all, who were eye-witnesses, to reveal nothing, and as John, in his narra- 
tive, obeys this injunction, the fair presumption is, that Jesus, when he heard she was dead, 
doubted his ability to restore her, and did not choose to have too many witnesses to a failure; 
and that after he had come into the room, the transaction was not of such a kind, that he 
thought it safe for his reputation as a miracle-worker, that it should be known abroad; but 
that Matthew, Mark and Luke afterward obtained an inkling of the affair, which in some way 
leaked out, and which proved sufficient to enable them to make such a brief account of a sup- 
posed miracle as they have done. 

Are we to believe a revelation on the testimony of works done in secret, and ordered to be 
kept secret? 

The fifteenth case is related by John (4—46 to 54) of the cure of the son of a nobleman of 
Capernaum. It appears that Jesus did not see the subject of this miracle, He was at home; 
the father came to Jesus, and was told by him that his son lived ; he (the father) then went 
away alone, and, as John say?, met his servants, who told him that his son was better, &c. Now, 
since John did not go with the father, nor see the son, or know any thing personally about the 
time of his beginning to amend, all the testimony, that we have here to support the slightest 
possible pretence of a miracle, is simply John's virtual declaration that he heard (how, or from 
whom, he heard it, the deponent saith not), that at the same hour when Jesus told the man his 
son should live, the son began to amend ; and that he (John) had no doubt, from these circum- 
stances, that Jesus wrought a miracle upon the sick man. But I suppose the day has gone by 
when such "circumstantial evidence" as this, is sufficient to prove a miracle. 

The sixteenth case, is that related by Matthew (8—6 to 13) and Luke (7—2 to 10), of the 
Centurion's servant at Capernaum, and is probably the same one as the last ; but as the accounts 
differ a little, I thought proper to consider them as referring to different transactions. Here 
too the person sick was at a distance from Jesus ; so that even if Matthew were with Jesus at 
the time, (which, if true, is not stated), he could not have personally known any thing about the 
cure, and could only have heard of it, as John did in the other case. But I suppose tew men 
would now (although many would at the time of Jesus) believe a miracle was wrought, simply 
because a man, who believed in miracles, should say that he had heard, in a particular case, of 
such circumstances as satisfied his mind that there was one. Besides, another part of Mat- 



30 THE DEIST'S REPLY, 

thew's story cannot be true. The man said his servant was " sick of the palsy, grievously tor- 
mented." This could not be the case, because palsy, instead of grievously tormenting folks, 
never occasions pain, but generally deprives them of all sensibility to pain. 

But supposing the servant did have a sudden and painful attack of some sort, which alarmed 
the Centurion, and then, while the Centurion was gone to Jesus, did actually recover from it, 
that is no proof of a miracle, because such temporary illnesses are frequent occurrences. 

I now come to the examination of those cases, where Jesus is said to have cast out devils. 
But we will first inquire whether there ever were such a thing as men's being possessed of 
devils. There is perhaps not an enlightened Christian in America, who, notwithstanding he 
may believe that, at the time of Jesus, men were possessed of devils, believes that they ever have 
been in any otner instance, either before or since. And those, who believe that such was the 
fact then, believe it simply because a. particular set of superstitious men, in a superstitious age, 
believed so, and have related some circumstances about it, which they say happened at that 
time. The testimony of the whole Jewish nation, who did not also believe in Jesus, would not 
have made them credit it for a moment. If the same thing had been stated in any other book 
than the Bible, men now would no more credit it, than they would an assertion that men were 
inhabited by the spirits of oxen and horses. Yet such is the unparalleled gullibility of some 
men in relation to every thing related in the Bible, or connected with Christianity. 

There are indeed many Christians now, who do not pretend to believe in this matter literally. 
They will say that they suppose those individuals, out of whom Jesus was said to cast devils, 
were insane, or had some disorder, which the people of that nation, being ignorant of diseases, 
attributed to the influence of "evil or unclean spirits ;" and that whatever that disorder may 
have been, Jesus cured it miraculously. But if such men will look at the accounts as they are 
told to us in the New Testament, taking the collateral circumstances, which are related, as facts, 
it is absolutely out of the power of the human mind, either by sophistical interpretation of lan- 
guage, or by any possible perversion of intellect, to believe that those persons were insane, or 
that they had any disorder, unless an imaginary one, other than that of being actually and une- 
quivocally inhabited by such evil spirits, as, if they really existed, might more properly be de- 
nominated devils than any thing else. The narratives of the doings of Jesus state the precise 
number of devils, that went out of particular individuals — thus leaving no chance for equivoca- 
tion, or any apology for the pretence that the persons were insane, in the ordinary acceptation 
of the word. For example, out of Mary Magdalen there actually went seven devils — seven in- 
dividual spirits, or this affair of being possessed of devils was all a delusion. In other cases, 
Jesus is said to have cast out one, and in one instance a legion. If therefore men will believe 
the Bible, they must believe in devils too. 

These accounts say further that these devils would speak. Mark says (5 — 12), after having 
spoken of a legion of devils being cast out, that ** all the devils besought him, saying, send us 
into the swine, that we may enter into them." If we believe the truth of these narratives, 
there is no escape from believing that there were such living and speaking creatures as devils, 
who inhabited both men and — swine ! 

Here the believer, or rather the one who wishes to be a believer (for I do not think it possi- 
ble for any person of common knowledge and common sense any longer to be actually so) may 
perhaps, in the height of his embarrassment, put the question, how then are these accounts to 
be explained, unless we believe that those, who relate them, were knaves and liars ? To an- 
swer this question is very easy. The people of that nation were superstitious enough to believe 
in devils, (as people have sometimes believed in witches), and to believe that they entered into 
men, and then controlled them as they pleased. When such a belief was prevalent, it is to be 
expected that among the more ignorant, who composed the great body of the community, there 
would be multitudes, who would imagine themselves to be possessed of them, just as some per- 
son, who have believed in witchcraft, have imagined themselves bewitched. A person, who 
should suppose himself under the dominion of devils, would imagine himself actually compel- 
led, by a power which he could not resist, to such unnatural and strange conduct as he believed 
an evil spirit would instigate men to. And this fact accounts for the conduct of the man, (or 
men, for here again the stories disagree), spoken of by Matthew (8—28 to 34), Mark (5 — 1 to 
17), and Luke (8—27 to 36), who was said to live among the tombs, to be driven by the devil 
into the wilderness, &c. A man in this condition, could be restored in no other way than by 
some deception of the imagination. This man was so restored. He believed Jesus to be the 
Son of God, as is proved by the fact that he addressed him as the " Son of the most high God." 
He believed also that Jesus had power over evil spirits, as is proved by the circumstance that he 
" besought him not to torment him." When therefore this powerful being should command the 
devils to go out of him, he, of course, would suppose that they had left him, and would then ap- 
pear the sane. As for the rest of the circumstances related, such as that of the devils talk- 
ing, going into the swine, &c, they are only such embellishments as a story of that kind would 
naturally gain by a very little circulation in such a community as that — and these historians, who 
give us the accounts, having, like the rest of their countrymen, perfect faith in the reality of 
such circumstances, would relate them, as they heard them, without in the least doubting their 
truth. It is evident that they only recorded the flying story of the times, from the fact that 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 31 

thev disagree as to the number healed. Matthew says two, Mark and Luke but one. That their 
different accounts refer to the same transaction, is evident from the similarity of the stories, 

and the language of each, and also from the circumstance that I hoy arc related by each imme- 
diately alter the story of Jesus's calming the tempest. 

Besides the above, there are five different instances of Jesus's casting out devils. One is re- 
lated by Mark (I — 23 to 26), and Luke (4 — 33 to 35). From botli these accounts, it appears that 
the man, out of whom the devil was supposed to be cast, considered Jesus "the Holy one of 
God ;" and that circumstance is sullicient evidence that the cure, like the disea.se, was the work 
of the imagination. 

Another case is related by Mark only, (7 — 25 to 30). All that Mark knew of this case as 
appears from his account, was, that he heard, (for he is not supposed to have been with Jesus] 
that a woman came to Jesus, and told him that her daughter, who was at home, was possessed 
of a devil ; that he told her the devil had gone out; and that when she arrived at home, she 
found her daughter lying on a bed. To Mark's mind, and perhaps also to the minds of some 
men in more modern ages of the world, these facts, thus obtained, proved a miracle. 

Another case is related by Matthew (.17 — 14 to 21), Mark (9—17 to 29), and Luke (9—38 to 
42). According to Mark's account, Jesus "rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou 
dumb and deaf spirit, 1 charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him." (Can 
any thing be imagined more ludicrous or disgusting than such a speech? Verily, "never man 
spake like this man"). Still, after he had said thus, "the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and 
came out of him, and he was as one dead, insomuch that many said he is dead. But Jesus 
took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he — arose !" and from the circumstance that he 
did arise, and probably appear more calm than before, they all inferred that he had been deliv- 
ered of a real devil. 

This wonderful exhibition of miraculous power so astonished Jesus's disciples, that they af- 
terwards asked him why they could not cast him out? (They, it seems, had attempted it, and 
failed, (Mark 9 — 18). He answered — doubtless with an air and manner becoming the solemn 
nature of the case — that " this kind (of devils) can come forth (be brought forth) by nothing, 
but by prayer and— fasting !" 

Another case is related by Matthew only (9 — 32 to 34), of the cure of a dumb man, possessed 
of a devil. I will here add nothing, but a note of admiration, which appears to be very much 
needed, to the following brief, but graphic description of this affair by Matthew himself. "And 
when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake, and the multitudes marvelled !" 

The last case of this kind of miracle-working, that remains to be mentioned, is that of the 

cure of the man, who, according to Luke (11 — -14), was dumb, but, according to Matthew (12 

22), was both blind and dumb. Both accounts refer to the same transaction, as may be seen by 
the context following each. The difference in the accounts, of course, proves only the honesty 
of the writers ; it does, by no means, prove their lack of inspiration, their carelessness about 
particulars, or their readiness to record any idle story, which they might hear, without inquiring 
cautiously into its truth. Each one supposed that future generations could only wish to know 
the simple fact that a miracle was wrought; and therefore, not imagining that they themselves 
could ever be suspected of having been mistaken as to the reality of the miracle, did not trouble 
themselves to relate many of those circumstances, that would enable men now to judge whether 
they actually were or not. 

Matthew says that "they brought unto Christ one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb 
and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." Luke says, " and 
Christ was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone 
out, the dumb spake, and the people wondered." 

Language could hardly be selected, that should tell a stronger tale of superstition, than is 
conveyed in these brief lines. Men imagining themselves possessed of a devil! and that the 
devil prevents them from seeing ! and speaking ! others standing around to see the Son of God 
dislodge a devil, as boys stand around to see the tricks of a juggler. 

If the Bible has accomplished enough of good to atone for the numerous and mischievous 
superstitions, which, in various ways, it has entailed upon, and introduced into, men's minds 
it has done more good than, I think, is apparent to most impartial observers of the whole of the 
history of Christendom, as compared with that of other nations of the same degree of intelli- 
gence. Even if it has not originated, it has, at least, justified, spread, and probably prolonged 
a belief in witchcraft and sorcery — it has introduced superstitions about a Son of God ; about 
his visiting the earth in the disguise of a man ! about a Holy Ghost, or Holy phantom • 
about a fictitious atonement, and a barbarous and useless sacrifice, which have for ao-es and 
centuries engrossed the minds of the few learned men, who otherwise might have been en- 
gaged in liberal schemes for improving society. And finally, it has spread wide a belief in 
angels, and miracles, and evil spirits — in a devil and his ten thousand deputies prowlino- about 
the universe. 

I must now think that, of the thirty-three miracles of Jesus, twenty two have been disposed 
of in a manner, if not satisfactory to, at least, unanswerable by, the most resolute believer. 
Eleven remain to be examined. 



32 THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

One is that of calming the tempest, recorded by Matthew (8—24 to 27), Mark (4—37 to 41), 
and Luke (8—23 to 25). Matthew says "the ship was covered with the waves." Mark says 
"the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full." Luke says "they were filed with 
water." Now we know that these accounts cannot be true, because Jesus would not have re- 
mained asleep, had this been the case. These errors are mentioned merely to show the pro- 
pensity these men had to exaggeration— a propensity, that, in many other instances, is manifest 
enough ; but which is here so palpable that it cannot be denied. 

Matthew says " there arose a great tempest," and Mark says " there arose a great storm of 
wind." But since these men have already been convicted of exaggeration, we may now judge 
for ourselves how great a "tempest" would be likely to arise on a little petty lake ; (fourteen 
miles long, and five wide;) and, unless we have a very strong desire to believe in miracles, 
we shall probably come to the conclusion that a slight squall arose, such as generally continues 
for a few minutes; that, it being in the evening (as Mark says, and as is probable from the 
circumstance that Jesus was asleep,) these timid and super=titous men thought they should cer- 
tainly be drowned ; that Jesus, being called, commanded the waves of this mighiy sea to be 
quiet; that when this sudden squall had passed, which probably happened very soon, the waves 
subsided, and they then thought the act of Jesus a miracle. These narrators, although they 
generally appear very fond of using the word "immediately," when relating any occurrence, 
which they themselves could not have seen, but in relation to which that woid is necessary in 
order to make out a good miracle, have, nevertheless, in this case, neglected, for some reason 
or another, to tell us how soon, after the command was given, quiet was restored — the fair pre- 
sumption is then that the wind and waves took their own time in this matter, as they always 
have done in every other of the same kind. * 

Another is that of Jesus's walking on the sea, related by Matthew (14 — 24 to 32,) Mark (6 — 
47 to 51,) and John (6—15 to 21.) John says that after Jesus had entered the ship, "immedi- 
ately it was atlanrl whither they went" — of course, it must have been near the shore when Je- 
sus came to it. Furthermore, they all agree that it was in the night; John says it was dark. 
Now, inasmuch as Jesus never shewed any inclination to trust himself on the water in the 
day-Ume, without any thing to bear him trp, is it not probable that he had at this time a plank, 
a slightly built raft, a small boat, or something else to stand on, which those in the ship or large 
boat did not see, or that lie walked tit the water instead of on it, rather than that he attempted 
to perform a miracle of that sort, and at that time, when none but his disciples, and probably 
not even these, would observe it? If he really could walk on the water, why did he not, at 
least once in his life, do it in the day-time, and in the presence of a concourse of people ? He 
surely had opportunities enough. * 

But perhaps it will be asked, how did Jesus get to that side of the lake, unless he walked 
across the water ? and a person, who should simply read the accounts of this affair, without 
looking at the map, would probably be misled into the supposition that the boat had crossed 
the lake, to the other side from where the disciples had left Jesus, and therefore that he could 
not have come to them unless he had crossed the lake also. But according to John (6 — 23,) it 
was at or near Tiberias, that the disciples left Jesus, and they landed (Mat. 14— 34) in "the 
land of Genessaret;" and it so happened that Tiberias and Genessaret are on the same side 
of the lake, (See lngraham's map of Palestine) adjoining each other. Jesus, therefore, un- 
doubtedly walked from one place to the otner, (perhaps a mile or two) on the land, while the 
disciples went in the boat. 

The third one of the eleven is that of the fig-tree, related by Matthew (21—17 to 22,) and 
Mark (11 — 12 to 23.) Matthew says the fig-tree withered away "presently."" Mark says that 
as they passed the next morning they discovered that it was withered away. But they agree 
as nearly as we can reasonably suppose two such persons would, who should relate miracles 
upon hearsay. Since the story has nothing probable about it, and since the accounts disagree, 
it is probable that they both differ a little from the truth, and that the fig-tree was withered 
away when they frst came to it. This supposition is rendered more probable by the fact that 
Luke, who speaks of Jesus being at Bethany (19 — 29 to 40.) and of some other circumstances 
mentioned by Matthew, says nothing about the fig-tree. It is also rendered probable by the 
fact that there were no figs on the tree. Mark pretends to account for there being no figs on 
it, by saying that the time of figs had not yet come — but this is clearly a falsehood, for if such 
were the truth, why did Jesus go to the tree at all ? Or why did he manifest so much disap- 
pointment at not finding figs, as to " curse " even a tree ?" f 

* In confirmation of the truth of this explanation, I quote from Came, a recent Christian traveller in 
Palestine, who says, in describing this lake, that ''the boats used on it are, in some seasons of the year, 
much exposed from the sudden squalls of wind, which issue from between the mountains." 

I have taken some pains to procure "Carne's Travels in the East," for Letters from the East.) so as to 
be able to refer the reader to the page where this fact is stated; but the book is a rare one, and I have not 
found it- I can therefore only refer to an extract published in the American Traveller (Boston) Oct. 29, 
1833, Article, Lake Tiberias. 

t Mark 11—21. Master, behold the fig-tree, which thou cursedst, is withered away. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 33 

The fourth, related by Mark only (7 — 32 to 36,) is that of the cure of a man "who was deaf, 
and had an impediment in his speech." Jesus, in order doubtlessly to have a fair opportunity 
to perform this miracle, and to do it in a manner to furnish evidence to the world of his mirac- 
ulous power, " took the man aside from the multitude." When he had done this, he " put his 
Jingers into his ears ;" " then spit, and touched his tongue;" then "looked up to heaven, and 
sighed,*' and uttered the word Ephphatha, and thus, as Mark heard the story, opened the man's 
ears, and loosed the string of his tongue so that he spake plain, and then " charged them that 
they should tell no man " of the occurrence. 

The fifth, related by John (2 — 1 to 10,) is that of turning- the water into wine. John says that 
this was the first miracle that Jesus ever performed ; but does not say that he saw it done ; and 
if it were his first attempted miracle, it is entirely improbable that John was present. Besides, 
towards the close of the preceding chapter, John speaks particularly of Andrew, Peter, Philip 
and Nathanael, as having become disciples of Jesus ; but mentions none others as such, previ- 
ous to this wedding. We must therefore suppose that John here only tells us a hearsay story. 
Now it would be nothing strange if Jesus were to go to a wedding — nor would it be any thing 
strange if they were to have wine there — nor would it be strange if Jesus should there make 
some pretensions to miracle-working — nor would it be strange, if, out of these circumstances, 
after he had obtained a little notoriety in his way, a story should be got up and circulated simi- 
lar to that told by John ; but it would be very strange if a man should work a miracle ; and it 
would also be very strange that neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke should ever have heard of 
this miracle, if there really were one wrought, (if they had heard of it, some of them would un- 
doubtedly have recorded it, since they have taken the pains to record so many things of no con- 
sequence at all); and it would also be very strange if the saviour of a world should perform 
either his first or last miracle of this kind. We should as naturally expect a Son of God would 
exhibit his powers by making broomsticks dance cotillions, as by such a miracle as this. Still — 
as was before remarked — such a main as I have supposed Jesus to have been, would, when first 
beginning hesitatingly to think about working miracles, be very likely to have made an attempt 
or pretension of this kind — and if he but made such an attempt or pretension, that circumstance 
alone would afford sufficient materials for a future story. 

The sixth, related by Luke (7 — 11 to 16), is that of raising from the dead the son of the 
widow of Nain. This story is told by none but Luke. He, as I have said before, was a citizen 
of Antioch, and was converted to Christianity by Paul — of course, he never knew any thing 
personally of Jesus or his miracles ; he must therefore have depended entirely upon the stories 
of others for his information. Of whom he obtained it in this instance we know not. He wrote 
his narrative some thirty or forty years after the death of Jesus. So that all the evidence we 
have here to prove an occurrence so wonderful as that of a man's being restored to life after he 
had once died, is a simple declaration, made many years afterward, by a man living remote from 
the place, and who could not have personally known any thing about what he was writing, but 
who has been shown heretofore to be credulous enough to believe miracles on the testimony of 
others. 

Furthermore, neither of the other narrators, although two of them were of the twelve, give 
us any account of such an occurrence, although, if it really happened, they would most surely 
have heard of it, and if they had heard of it, they would as surely have related it; for, in order 
to make their stories 'a.* marvellous as possible, they have already gone so far as to relate for 
undoubted miracles many things, which they could not have known to be true, even if they 
were true. 

The seventh case, that of raising Lazarus from the dead, is related by John only, (11 chapter)* 
John does not say that he saw the act. If then we believe that, in this case, a man really died* 
and was then restored to life again, we must believe a fact, such as we could not now be made 
to believe if ten thousand of the most respectable men of any nation on earth should solemnly 
testify that they saw it. We must believe it too on the testimony of a single individual — one 
who gives the account forty years after the transaction is alleged to have been performed ; who 
does not even say that he saw it; who is not supported by a single one of the many alleged eye- 
witnesses, nor by the testimony of any other person. 

If the ten thousand should testify as I have supposed, we should then say, either that the 
man had not been actually dead, or that some deception or another had been practised upon the 
witnesses — and we should say so with perfect confidence too, because we should know, as ab- 
solutely as it is possible for us to know any thing, that such an occurrence could not have hap- 
pened. Yet we are called upon to believe it in this case, upon such testimony as 1 have men- 
tioned. Is it possible that the attempt can be made at this day, to impose upon men's under- 
standings by such stuff as this ? 

But there is evidence tending to discredit this story of John. 

One part of this evidence is, that neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke speak of the affair. Yet 

Luke heard of, and even related (10 — 38 to 42), so small and unimportant a circumstance as that 

of Jesus's once being in Bethany, at the house of Martha, the sister of Lazarus, and yet he 

never heard (as we may safely infer from the fact that he never related it) of this miracle 

5 



34 the deist's reply. 

wrought upon Lazarus — a miracle too, that is so much more wonderful than Jesus was generally 
supposed to perform. 

If Jesus had actually raised Lazarus from the dead, and the act could have heen well authen- 
ticated, (hardly a supposable case however), it must have been evidence of the strongest char- 
acter of any that his works had ever furnished, that, he possessed miraculous power — and so his 
disciples must have considered it, if they had possessed common understandings. Yet it was 
never noised abroad so as that any except John ever heard of it. 

Matthew (26—6 to 13), Mark (14—3 to 9), and Luke (7—37 and 3S) also heard of, and re- 
lated, the circumstance of Mary, whom John says (11 — 2) was the sister of Lazarus, anoint- 
ing the head of Jesus with ointment, yet they neither of them utter a syllable about his rais- 
ing her brother from the dead. It is difficult to account for this fact, unless we suppose that 
John was actually dishonest, or that he took up, believed and recorded a flying story, which 
an occurrence of some kind had given rise to, but which was without any foundation in truth. 

Furthermore, John says (11 — 45, 46 and onward) what is equivalent to saying, that a part 
of the eye-witnesses themselves, not only disbelieved that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, 
but believed that he was attempting to practise some imposition upon them. He says, "then 
many of the Jews, which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on 
him, but," he adds, (and this " but" spoils his story) " some of them went their ways to the 
Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done." He then represents that the Phari- 
sees forthwith attempted to apprehend him, on account of the stories that had been told them 
by some of those who had witnessed the transaction. 

It seems hardly possible to vindicate John from the charge of actual dishonesty — for he pre- 
tends to relate even the conversation, which the Pharisees held on this subject, when he cer- 
tainly could not have known it. He also attributes to them motives and designs, which it is 
impossible should ever inhabit the breasts of human beings, viz: such as wishes to take a 
man's life because he had raised a person from the dead. It is also incredible that they should 
dare attempt such an act, even if they wished to have it performed. 

I think it would not be difficult to show that John's love of distinction, his hatred of the 
Pharisees, and his determination to spread Christianity, led him to dishonest lengths in other 
cases. ' He was the one, (Mark 10 — 3-"> to 41), who was so eager to obtain from Jesus a 
promise of preference over the rest of his disciples, in heaven, (or more probably in the 
earthly kingdom), as that they were offended at him. He shows the same disposition after- 
wards, in his own narrative, by speaking of himself, ill four or five different places, as "that 
disciple whom Jesus loved," — thus pretending that he himself was the favorite over the 
others. 

He also equivocates, (21 — 22 and 23), by pretending that Jesus, or the one whom he sup- 
posed to be Jesus, did not mean what his words most plainly import, and what John acknowl- 
edges that the disciples at the time understood him to mean. His motive for this equivoca- 
tion may be traced to a circumstance related in his Biography in Lempriere's Biographical 
Dictionary, where it is said that he wrote his narrative for the purpose of proving that Jesus 
was not a man, and in opposition to what he deemed an error, viz: a belief, at that time 
avowed, that he was but a man. This equivocation was necessary in order to make it appear 
that Jesus did not intend to intimate that certain things would happen, which had not happen- 
ed, and were not likely to. 

This purpose, in writing his narrative, accounts for his superior carefulness in relating, in 
connexion with the supposed miracles, any circumstances that might tend to discredit their re- 
ality; and also for the conversations which he relates as attending them; although it is evident 
that he must either have invented much of them, or adopted them from the mouths of others, 
without any thing like reasonable evidence of their genuineness — the former of which suppo- 
sitions appears the more probable, both from his own character, (for he could then invent 
such conversation as would suit the circumstances of the case), and also from the fact that he 
could not, forty years afterward, have remembered such full, connected and unbroken con- 
versations as he has pretended to relate. 

John also (12 — 10 and 11) shows his bitter malignity, and his readiness to make the most 
diabolical charges, against such as did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, by saying that the 
Chief Priests " consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death." 

Finally, he has more unmeaning theological cant in his narrative than all the other three to- 
gether. 

Nevertheless, it is possible that John has told an honest story in this case of Lazarus, and 
one too that is true in its main features. But if he has done so, he has implicated a man, 
whose character is of much more consequence to the Christian religion, than his own; and 
that man is Jesus. Several circumstances are related in this story, which, if they are consid- 
ered to have really happened, furnish palpable and glaring evidence of collusion between 
Lazarus and Jesus. For example — Jesus knew, before he went, at this time, to Bethany 
where Lazarus lived, that Lazarus was dead, (John 11 — 14). Now how did he (being, as 
appears by the context, at a considerable distance off) know this fact, unless there had been a 
previous understanding between them that Lazarus should die about that time? He had 
heard (11 — 3) that he was sick, but there is no evidence that he had heard of his death. On 
the contrary, the disciples were utterly ignorant of it (11 — 11, 12 and 13) until the informa- 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS~ 35 

tion unexpectedly came from Jesus himself. How came Jesus by this information without 
the knowledge of his disciples? If a messenger had brought it, they must have known it too, 
for some of them were undoubtedly all this time with him. We have no right to say that he 
obtained it supernaturally, because it is not yet proved that he had any supernatural power. 
Yet he knows the fact, when they do not, and there is a way by which he may have obtained 
this knowledge. That way is this — Lazarus may have directed his sisters to send this mes- 
sage to Jesus, that he was sick, and this may have been agreed upon as the signal by which 
Jesus might know that Lazarus was about to die. If such were not the purpose of this mes- 
sage, why was it sent? We are told that Jesus loved Lazarus. But why then did he not go 
to him immediately on hearing that he was sick, instead of waiting, apparently without any 
necessity, for two or three days? The reason is obvious — he waited for him to die, and he 
knew that he would die. But he. could not have known that he would die, unless it had been pre- 
viously agreed that he should die. I repeat that it cannot be said that Jesus knew, by means 
of his supernatural power, that Lazarus would die;. because that would be attempting to defend 
the miracle, on the evidence of his supernatural power, instead of proving the supernatural 
power by the miracle. Besides, if he could know, by means of his supernatural power, 
either that Lazarus was dead, or that he would die, he could also, in the same way, have 
known that he was sick, and it must therefore have been unnecessary to send the information 
of his sickness to him. Is there then any way, other than by supposing collusion, in which 
this matter can be explained? 

Again. Jesus declared (11 — 4), when he first heard of the sickness of Lazarus, that one 
object of this sickness was, " that the Son of God might be glorified thereby," (that is, that 
he himself might get some credit by it). Now, how did he know that it would terminate so 
as that he should get credit by it? We cannot, I again repeat, say that he knew it by means 
of his supernatural power, because that would be assuming him to have supernatural power, 
and then attempting to prove the miracle by it; whereas the power must first be proved by the 
miracle. Besides, there are too many cases of his making inquiries for the sake of ascertain- 
ing what his inquiries imply that he did not know, to leave any apology for pretending that 
he knew any thing supernaturally. There is then 'but one answer to the question, how he 
knew beforehand the manner in which this sickness would terminate? and that answer is, that 
it had been agreed between him and Lazarus how it should terminate, and Jesus inferred that 
he should gain some credit by it. 

Again. There is something very suspicious in the manner, in which he communicated to 
his disciples the fact, that Lazarus was dead. He communicates it to them as if it were some- 
thing, which he was aware would surprise them, but which nevertheless was not new to him. 
The manner, in which he introduces the matter, is peculiarly suspicious. He does not at 
once come to the point; but speaks allegorically, says Lazarus is asleep., &c, and that he must 
go and wake him. 

Another suspicious circumstance is, that Lazarus was buried neither in a grave, nor a tomb, 
but in a cave. The man might live very well in a cave; he might himself have deposited 
provisions there beforehand, and he might have told his sisters where and how soon to bury 
him, after he was dead. He seems also to have had a very short sickjaess: his sisters send 
word to Jesus that he is sick, and the next thing we know of him is, that in about two days, 
(as it would appear from the story, although it is not explicitly stated), he is dead. He seems 
too to have been buried in a great hurry; for when Jesus arrived, " he had lain in the grave 
four days." 

Another suspicious circumstance is, that the stone, that lay upon the cave, must be remov- 
ed, (11 — 39), by hand too, before the supernatural power could operate so as to bring the dead 
man out. A stone, laying over the mouth of a cave, must be a great obstacle in the way of a 
miracle. 

Another circumstance, of the same import, is, that when Jesus came to the work of raising 
Lazarus, " he cried with a loud voice," to call him out. Now it might be necessary to speak 
loudlj' to make a living man, who was in a cave, hear; but a dead man could have heard a 
less labored tone equally well. 

Again. There was an altogether unusual ostentation about this miracle. Jesus talked a 
great deal about it beforehand; spoke of it as an affair that was to accomplish great things in 
the way of glorifying God, and himself too. 

Another circumstance against the reality of this resurrection from the dead, is, that Jesus 
never raised any others from the dead. (I here take it for granted that it has been shown that 
there is no sort of reason for pretending that he raised the son of the widow of Nain, or the 
daughter of Jairus). If he could really raise men from the dead, why did he not show his 
miraculous power again and again, in this way, so as to place it beyond dispute; instead of 
curing sick folks, casting out devils, spitting in men's eyes, filling them with clay, touching 
their tongues, putting his fingers in their ears, and such like disgusting farces, ten thousand 
of which would be no evidence of any thing except that he was an impostor or a fool? If he 
could really raise men from the dead, he could have established himself at once on the credit 
of his miracles. And yet one solitary case, and that too surrounded by circumstances of the 
strongest suspicion, is all the evidence he ever gave, in his whole career, of his power to raise 
the dead. 



gg THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

A-ain Judging naturally of a portion of this story (11-45 and 46) we have abundant 
evidence that a pfrt of the eye-witnesses themselves detected the hoax on the spot The 
story i that soml of them believed, but that others went forthwith to the Pharisees-known 
enemies of Jesus-and made such representations that measures were immediately taken to 
have him apprehended. How is this conduct of these witnesses to be accounted for, unless 

th k at^airatoGjShrlLlO), that the Chief Priests were satisfied-probably by the story 
of he P a G L wimeVses-that lizarus also was a knave, for they are said to have consulted to 
put him to death-a thing, which they never could have dreamed of doing for the cause which 

-The worid has been full of alleged miracles, but I do not believe another record of one can 
be produced, containing such irresistible evidence of fraud as this.* 

To proceed with the examination of the remaining miracles. There are two cases, where 
Jesus Fs said to have fed the multitude miraculously One case is mentioned by Matthew 
(14-15 to 21), Mark (6-41 to 44), Luke (9-12 to 17) and John (6-3 to 14) where five 
thousand (an undoubted exaggeration-another « great tempest") were said to have been fed 
from five loaves and two fishel The other instance, where he is said to have fed four thou- 
sand, I e mentlon%d only by Matthew (15-32 to 33) and Mark (8-1 to 9). All that is neces- 
sary to reply to such accounts as these, is, first, that neither of those, who tell the story, says 
that he himself was present, and even if any one of them had said so, they have all been con- 
victed of so much exaggeration and misrepresentation, that they would not deserve to be cred- 
ited so far as to have a miracle, or any other improbable story believed on their testimony— 
and secondly, that if Jesus ever had any thing to do in distributing food to five thousand men, 
who believed in his miraculous power, there were then five thousand probable chances; and 
if he ever had any thing to do in distributing food to four thousand of the same sort of be- 
lievers, there were then four thousand probable chances, that stories respecting the circum- 
stance would be told, and would get magnified into a miracle, although there were none, and 
that these stories would be believed by all his followers— these narrators among the rest— who 
should not absolutely know the contrary, and who were eager to believe every marvellous 
story about him, of which there was to their minds a possibility of truth. 

In the last of these two cases, a very good reason can be conjectured, why the fragments, 
that remained, should be equal to the amount distributed. It appears (Mat. 15—32, Mark 8 — 
2) that this company had been in " the wilderness" three days, and it is probable that the 
loaves and fishes had been there the same length of time. The climate of Judea is warm. 

Another case is that of the miraculous draught of fishes. It is related by Luke only (5 — 4 
to 11). He says that fishes enough were caught in one net, at one draught, to fill two "ships" 
so full that they began to sink. (Mr. Luke, that's a great story to tell). Matthew (4—18 to 
22) and Mark (1 — 16, 18) both speak of the same occasion, and of some of the incidents re- 
lated by Luke, yet neither says any thing about any fishes being taken — the probability is, 
therefore, that Luke was misinformed in this respect. Besides, Luke says (5 — 9 and 10) that 
John was there, and that he " was astonished at the draught of the fishes which they had 
taken" — yet, for some reason or another, John did not see fit to vouch for this miracle, or 
even to allude to it — perhaps he had a little more discretion than Luke. 

One miracle only remains. This is related by Luke only (22 — 50 and 51). He says that 
when a servant of the High Priest had his ear cut off, Jesus touched it, and healed it. It is a 
sufficient answer to this, to say that Luke was not there, and probably never heard even of 
the ear being cut off until many years afterward — that during this time a story about so insig- 
nificant an incident as the cutting off of a man's ear, would very naturally gain the appendage, 
which is here attached to it, viz : that it was also healed. But there is another answer, which, 
even if it stood alone, would be sufficient. That is, that although Matthew, Mark and John 
(two of whom were of the twelve, and were probably at or near the spot at the time) relate 
the fact of the ear being cut off, neither of them says a word about its being healed. 

Thus much for the reality of those miracles, that have imposed on a larger proportion of 
enlightened men, in modern times, than at the time when they were supposed to have been 
performed. If an hundredth part of the effort, which has been made to prove these events to 
have been really supernatural, had been directed (as on the plainest principles of reason it 
should have been) to the accounting, in a natural manner, for the stories respecting them, the 
difficulty would have long since vanished. 

Honesty of intention may, nevertheless, in general, fairly be accorded to these writers, in 
circulating these stories about miracles, for the truth of which they do not explicitly vouch as 
eye-witnesses. Some of these transactions were probably supposed by Matthew and John, 
who were of the twelve, to have occurred when they were absent; and they, having often 
seen him, as they believed, cast out devils, and heal the sick, which, to their minds, were as 
real miracles as the raising of the dead, or the removal of a mountain, would notrin general 
doubt in the least the truth of any stories that they might hear. Mark and Luke, not being 

*What evidence is there ef the deliberate villainy of Mahomet, Matthias or Joe Smith, that can com- 
pare with this evidence of similar conduct on the part of Jesus ? 

Or what stronger evidence of his knavery can be wanted than his pretence of calming the tempest ? 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OF JESUS. 37 

of the twelve, but being, Luke certainly, and Mark probably, subsequent converts, of course 
depended upon the stories of others for every thing they relate. Luke, depending upon this 
source of information, has gone so far as to relate (Chap. 1), for realities, even the conversa- 
tions, that angels were said to have held with persons on earth fifty or sixty years before the 
time when he wrote his narrative. Can any stronger evidence be desired to prove that many 
of those conversations and circumstances, which these narrators recorded so many years after 
the transactions, were such as their own imaginations, from having long dwelt upon those oc- 
currences, and the imaginations of others, among whom the stories had previously circulated, 
furnished as appendages to the truth? Or can any stronger proof be required of the credu- 
lity and superstition of these writers, or of their readiness to adopt any story, however im- 
probable in itself, that should be floating in that community? a community, the very atmos- 
phere of which, it would seem, must have been saturated with reports of the marvellous 
works of the various Christs or Messiahs, who each appear to have been attempting to prove 
their pretensions by the same kind of means. Yet it is almost entirely this kind of hearsay 
testimony, such as would be scouted at in a Court of justice, if offered for the purpose of 
proving the most common and natural events, upon which men believe in occurrences vastly 
more improbable than any that ever resulted from natural causes. 

One argument, that is frequently alluded to in support of the reality of the miracles of Je- 
sus, is perhaps worthy of a notice here, in addition to what has been said. This argument 
is, that even the opposers of Jesus acknowledged that he wrought true miracles. One an- 
swer to this argument is, that their admissions are not at all binding upon us: and therefore 
even if they did make them, we have an undoubted right to inquire whether they may not 
have been mistaken. And if we make this inquiry, we shall unquestionably find that they 
may have been, because among them a miracle was considered to be a very common occur- 
rence, and capable of being wrought apparently by almost any one who was disposed to at- 
tempt it. It would be nothing strange therefore if some of the opposers of Jesus should ac- 
knowledge that he wrought miracles. He himself virtually acknowledges (Mat. 24 — 24) that 
the false Christs could work miracles, and also that the man, who used his name to east out 
devils (Mark 9 — 88, 39 and 40), wrought real miracles. 

Another answer is, that these admissions generally appear to have been made, if made at 
all, not upon actual observation, but upon the representations of others. They also appear 
not to have been heard, by these writers who relate them, but simply to have been heard of, 
or inferred, by them; as they evidently must have been in the case of Lazarus (John 11 — 
47), because these disciples could not have been present at the consultations held on this sub- 
ject by the Priests and other leading men. What then would a million of such facts be worth 
to prove miracles? 

There are a few additional circumstances tending, so obviously, to confirm the views I have 
taken of the miracles of Jesus, that they are not to be omitted. 

Luke says (23 — 8 and 9) that when Jesus was brought before Herod, Herod desired to see 
him work some miracle, and asked him many questions; but that Jesus answered nothing. 
It appears that Herod intended to deal uprightly with Jesus, and was also prepared to believe 
the evidence of miracles. Why then did not Jesus, if he possessed miraculous power, take 
advantage of such an opportunity, to do something before this assembly to prove that he was 
what he had professed to be? 

At another time the Jews (John 2 — 18 to 21) asked him to show them some sign (miracle) 
as an evidence of his right to attempt to drive them from the temple — and a very reasonable 
request it was. But the only miracle, that he proposed to work, was to rebuild the temple in 
three days, provided they would first destroy it. But they, like rational men, had not suffi- 
cient confidence in his power to do it, to induce them to demolish it, for the sake of giving 
him an opportunity to try the experiment. 

John says that Jesus here referred to " the temple of his body." This is evidently ano- 
ther of John's equivocations, for if he did refer to his body, he was a cheat and an inten- 
tional deceiver, since he must have known that he was, by his language, causing them all to 
understand him as referring to the temple, in which they then were. 

In the early part of his preaching, when he was at Nazareth, (Luke 4 — 16 to 30), he went 
into the synagogue, and pretended that he was the one who had been prophesied of, but vir- 
tually acknowledged that they had a right to expect that he would show them some miracle,, 
by which they might know that he was what he pretended to be — and the only reason he as- 
signed for not performing one, was this potent one, viz: that a prophet would not be respected 
in his own country. Those, who heard him, were so offended at what appeared to them 
(reasonably too) an attempt to dupe them, that they thrust him out of the city, and led him 
to the brow of a hill, as if they intended to cast him down headlong; but when they had come 
there, " he, passing through the midst of them, went his way" — which language, if we had 
the true version of the affair, would probably read thus — "when they had frightened him by 
pretending to be about to cast him headlong down the hill, they let him go."* 

John, speaking of another occasion, says (12 — 37) "though he had done so many miracles 

*Luke says (2 — 52) that as Jesus grew up to manhood, he " increased in favor with God and man.' 
Now this affair took place in " Nazareth, where he had been brought up," (Luke 4 — 16). He seems 
therefore never to have got into very high " favor" with the people of his own village ; for had he done 
so, they would not have been likely, on this occasion, to have treated him quite so shabbily. 



33 the deist's replt. 

before them, yet they believed not on him." It appears extremely probable that God would 
send a messenger on earth, and, in order to prove him to the world to be his messenger, should 
o-ive him miraculous power, and that then this messenger should not be able to perform mira- 
cles of such a kind as would convince even eye-witnesses. 

In another instance Matthew says (13 — 5S) "and he did not many mighty works there be- 
cause of their unbelief." Now if it was the great purpose of his mission to bring men to 
believe on him, when he found any incredulous, that circumstance, instead of furnishing a 
reason why he should not work miracles before them, was only an additional reason why he 
should not fail to work such as would inevitably convince them. 

Mark, (6 — 5 and 6), speaking of the same occurrence, says, " and he could do there no 
mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them, and he mar- 
velled because of their unbelief." This declaration of Mark virtually denies his miraculous 
power in toto, because if he possessed it, he could certainly, wherever he might be, have 
found something beside sick folks upon which to exert it. 

When the Pharisees wished to see some evidence of his being what he pretended to be, 
(Mark 8 — 11 to 13), he appeared (to his disciples at least) deeply afflicted that men's hearts 
should be so hard as not to believe without evidence, and said he would not show them any 
sign, but "left them and departed." Mark says the Pharisees asked him the question 
Si tempting him." But the question was certainly a proper one, and what evidence is there, 
that their motives, in asking it, were not of the same character? 

For some reason or another, Jesus was very suspicious of the enlightened part of the com 
rmmity — a little more so: it seems to me, than a genuine Messiah would have any occasion 
to be. He was continually apprehending some trap, or design against him. He was also 
continually laboring to excite the prejudices of his disciples against them — conduct not very 
consistent with the idea that he was really a superior being. 

Again. Jesus told his disciples (Mark 11 — 23), that if they were to command a mountain 
to move, and should not doubt in their hearts that it would move at their bidding, it actually 
would move. Now why did not he himself remove a mountain, if it could be so easily done, 
and thus present to all future generations a convincing and eternal monument of his Messiah- 
ship? One such miracle would be worth a million performed upon persons that pretended to 
be sick, or possessed of devils. It would have been worth a million of those pretended mira- 
cles, that, like all the other pretended miracles with which the world has been filled, vanished 
at the moments, and left no trace behind. But one answer readily occurs to such a question, 
viz: he could not. 

Some may say that it did not become him to perform miracles, that would not accomplish 
any physical good — but if he were such a being as he pretended to be, and his doctrines were 
true, it was of more importance to bring men to believe these facts, than it was to cure all the 
sick people that ever lived. He ought therefore to have adapted his miracles to the accom- 
plishment of the most important purpose he had in view. 

John says (6 — 30), that on a certain occasion, the people asked him directly, " What sign 
sbewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work?" This was put- 
fang the question home to him, and why did he not meet it, if he could, as he evidently ought? 
Could any request have been more reasonable, or more candid? Or could any combination 
of circumstances whatever have called upon him more urgently to display his miraculous 
power, if he had any, than did those in which he was then placed? It appears by the con- 
text, that there was an assemblage of people present, who had taken much pains to find where 
he was, and to come to him, and their question implies a readiness to be convinced by mira- 
cles. Yet all the satisfaction, which this man, who went about the country boasting what he 
could do, gave to these honest, proper and candid demands, was to evade them, to stand on 
his reserved rights like one who had nothing else to stand upon, and then to run into a long 
fanfaronade about his being the bread that came down from heaven, about his being better 
bread than the manna that was given to the Israelites, about the effect of eating his flesh, and 
drinking his blood,* and such like stuff, disgusting enough to sicken any one except such as 
have made up their minds, in advance, to swallow, as a delicious morsef of divine truth, any 
thing, and every thing, that may be found in the Bible, be it whatever it may. 

John also (6 — 66), after having related the above affair, adds, " From that time many of 
his distiples went back," (as well they might) " and walked no more with him. Then said 
Jesus unto the twelve, will ye also go away?" The terms of his question to the twelve seem 
to imply that all his disciples, who were present, except the twelve, deserted him at this time. 
But whether all deserted him, or not, there can be no reasonable doubt, judging from John's 
account, that a large portion of them did. Now it appears, by the former part of the chapter, 
that but a short time before, he had five thousand persons following him— and yet he now finds 
himse f so nearly destitute of friends, that he is afraid that even his chosen few will desert 
him also. It has been said by the advocates of Christianity, that we ought not to consider 
the reality of the miracles of Jesus as resting solely on the testimony of the narrators, but as 
being supported by the convictions of great numbers of eye-witnesses. How, let it be asked, 

* A /k e S ross .f eve L n tha * that of drinking from the skull bone of Odin, and more appropriate to be ob- 
served by cannibals than civilized men. 



THE ALLEGED MIRACLES OP JESUS. 39 

will those advocates pretend to meet the fact above referred to ? Here were "many" men, 
who had followed Jesus so long, that John calls them " his disciples," — men, who undoubt- 
edly had seen as much evidence of his miraculous power as be was able to exhibit — who were 
undoubtedly credulous enough to have been easily deceived by pretended miracles, and who 
yet desert him, and refuse to follow him any longer. The testimony therefore of " many" of 
his own followers, credulous and simple as they were, instead of being in favor of the reality 
of his miracles, is directly and positively against them. The inquiry may now .safely be put, 
whether Christians have it in their power to put into their ease, any evidence that can control 
this otherwise decisive testimony, which comes from those whom they had all along claimed 
as their own witnesses? 

If any one wish now to determine whether a sufficient answer have been given to the alle- 
ged miracles of Jesus, he has but to look back, and see whether he can put his finger upon 
any individual case, and say that the evidence relating solely to that case is conclusive that 
there must have been a miracle. Unless it be conclusive of that fact, it is unreasonable at all 
to regard it; because the probability must always be against the miracle so long as there is a 
discoverable lack or uncertainty in the evidence.* 

The supernatural occurrences, that are said to have taken place at the death of Jesus, may 
properly be referred to in connexion with the miracles. 

Matthew (27 — 45), Mark (15 — 33) and Luke (23—44) say that while Jesus was on the cross, 
there was, for three hours previous io his death, "darkness over all the land " The testimony 
of Mark and Luke to this matter is not worth noticing - , because there is no reason to suppose 
that they state any thing but a hearsay story. As respects Matthew, he has said enough to 
prove, that, if there were any darkness at all, theie was none that was so extraordinary as it 
must be supposed, from the fact of his mentioning it, that he intended to have people believe 
it to be. In the first place, if it had been thus extraordinary, the Jews must have been alarm- 
ed', and have desisted from the execution; but the fact that they did not desist, although by so 
doing, at any time during these three hours, they might have saved the life of Jesus, is suffi- 
cient evidence that there was no such darkness. Matthew (27 — 36 to 49) says also what is 
equivalent to saying, that those, who witnessed the crucifixion, felt a curiosity to see whether 
anything extraordinary, or supernatural would happen, but saw nothing of the kind. — " Sit- 
ting down, they watched him there." He then adds that some of them said, "Thou that de- 
stroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, 
come down from the cross." The "Chief Priests, Scribes and elders" also said "he saved 
others, himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the 
cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God ; let him deliver him now if he will have 
him." And again, but just before his apparent death, when he had cried " Eli, Eli," &c, and 
one had then run to put a sponge to his mouth, " the rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias 
will come and save him." These things show that there was such a curiosity felt as 1 have 
mentioned, and that this curiosity continued until they supposed him dead. Now, is it to be be- 
lieved that these men would have remained there, on the look-out for marvels, up to the very 
moment of his last gasp, as they supposed, and would then have so coolly said " Let be, let us 
see whether Elias will come and save him," when they had been witnesses, for three hours, of 
a continued and surprising "darkness over all the land," at mid-day? The thing is incredi- 
ble — the falsehood is too bare to be disguised for a moment. John makes no mention of this 
darkness. 

Matthew says also (27 — 50 to 53) that when Jesus died, "the earth did quake, and the rocks 
rent, and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose, and went 
into the holy city, and appeared unto many." But he does not say that he saw these things. 
Now is the word of this man Matthew — a man, nearly half of whose narrative appears to have 
been but the work of a " terrible-accident-maker" — to be taken for such facts as these ? Who 
but he had ever heard of the earth's quaking, the rocks rending, graves opening, dead rising, 
&c. ? No human being on earth, that we have any evidence. Besides, even John, who says 
(19 — 25 to 27) that he stood by the cross, and that Jesus, while on the cross, spoke to him, savs 
not a word of any such events; yet there is not room for a reasonable doubt that he would 
have done so, had they ever happened. 

Besides, it is incredible that the Jews, who knew that Jesus pretended to be the Messiah, and 
who were among the most superstitious people that ever lived, should not have been appalled 
by such a scene, if any such had happened, and have been converted ; yet they were not con- 
verted ; nor did they, although as I have said before, they were on the look-out for marvels 
see any thing to change their minds in relation to him. 

This story again shows the extent of the delusion among the followers of Jesus, and that 
Matthew was ever ready to relate, for truth, not only everything, however impossible, that he 
heard spoken of, but probably also some things which he did not hear spoken of. 

*If the reader wish any further confirmation that this view of the miracles of Jesus is correct, let him 
read the " Apocryphal New Testament," from which he will at least learn what kind of miracles it was 
common for the early Christians to believe in, and will thus be enabled to judge whether such works as 
I have supposed the pretended miracles of Jesus to have been, would not have been likely, at that time 
and among so superstitious a people, to have passed for true miracles. 



4() THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Prophecies. 

Of those predictions in the Old Testament, which are sometimes regarded as prophecies, 
only one, beside such as are said to relate to Jesus, will be particularly noticed ; and that, not 
because it has any resonable claims to be considered a prophecy, but because it is frequently 
mentioned as such. .... 

It is said to refer to the present state of the Jews. It is contained, Lbelieve, principally, in 
the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, and the 26th of Leviticus— and was uttered by Moses— how 
many centuries before the time of Jesus, I leave to others to calculate. I have refered to these 
chapters, and if the reader attaches a feather's weight to the predictions interspersed through 
them, I ask him, before going farther, to turn to the chapters, and read the whole of them. I 
hardly believe there is, in the country, a man of common sense and common intelligence, who 
will read them, and will then look an unbeliever in the face, and say he believes that Moses had 
any, the most distant, reference to the state of the Jews at this time, or that he intended the 
most remote intimation that any of those punishments, which he threatened, would be visited 
upon the Jews on account of their rejection of any Messiah, or any being like a Messiah. 

Moses was in the habit of pretending to have personal communications from Deity, in private, 
and to receive (Mahomet-like) from him those instructions, which, as the pretended agent of 
God, he imparted to- the ignorant, superstitious, simple and credulous Israelites.* In this way 
he imposed upon, and preserved his influence over them. He was in the habit also of promis- 
ing to them every variety of worldly prosperity, if they would obey the commands, which he, 
as if in the name of God, enjoined upon them, and of threatening them apparently with all the 
worldly evils that he could conceive of, in case of their disobedience. 

In the context immediately preceding these chapters, he gives the Israelites various com- 
mands as usual, and then follows them with such promises and threatenings as would naturally 
appear to him necessary to insure obedience. Among a variety of other threatened calamities, 
he enumerates dispersion by their enemies, and, on the other hand, among the promises, he 
enumerates, in palpable, and almost literal, contrast to the threat, success in putting their ene- 
mies to flight ; but in all this he says no more about a Messiah than he does about Vulcan or 
Neptune. And those predictions, which some would fain have understood as intended to refer 
to the present condition of the Jews, are such as would not now be thought of by Christians, 
as having any reference to any thing but the case then in hand, had not the advocates of Chriet- 
ianity, in order to support the truth of the Bible, been driven to the necessity of grasping at 
shadows instead of realities. 

But there is one way, in which every man can settle all questions in relation to these predic 
tions, viz : by answering to himself the question, whether, if the Jews had never been dispersed, 
he would consider these predictions intended as prophecies, and as having so failed, as that their 
failure would be substantial evidence against the truth of the Bible ? If such a. failure would 
not have been evidence against the truth of the Bible, such a fulfilment, as is set up for them, 
cannot be evidence in support of it. 

The idea that God dispersed the whole nation of Jews, and that he continues them in that 
dispersed state, simply because they were and are not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, 
or because a few of their nation, many centuries ago, put him to death, is consistent with the 
Old Testament doctrine that Cod punnishes the children for the iniquities of the parents, and 
also with the New Testament doctrine that God will punish men for not believing what appears 
to them improbable — but it is not consistent with the views that unbiassed minds have of the 
nature of justice. 

Many people think the present temporal condition of the Jews is evidence that God is pun- 
ing them for their obstinacy in not believing in Jesus. Now the condition of many millions of 
Africans is far worse than that of the Jews ; but can any one of those, who know so much 
about God's designs in bringing calamities upon particular nations, tell us what he is punishing 
the Africans for ? 

Do the ancient and modern conditions of the Jews furnish any more evidence that they were 
once God's favorite nation, (as the Bible pretends), or that they are now the objects of his dis- 

* He pretended to them that the Almighty wrote the ten commandments " with his own finger,'' on the 
tvvo tables of stone, and gave them to him — although he acknowledges that he was absent in the moun- 
tain forty days— a time sufficient for him to have written them himself, and a little longer than would 
probably have been necessary for the Almighty, (Deut. 9—9 to 11). 

He also, when there were thunder and lightning and a cloud (and nothing more, as any body may sat- 
isfy himself by-reading the verses hereafter referred to) on Mount Horeb. told the Israelites that the Lord 
was speaking to them, out of the fire. He also stood between them and the mountain, and 'pretended to 
interpret the thunder, and to give to them the meaning of the Lord in their own language, (Deut. 4 — 11 
and 12— also 5—4, 5, 22 to 28). 6 V 



TJIK PROPHECIES. 41 

like, than do the ancient and modern conditions of the Africans, of their having- once stood, 
and of their now standing, in ihe same relations to Cod? 

Suppose the inhabitants of some petty province in India should pretend that their ancestors 
had once boon the favorites of Deity, could thoy not, by referring to their history, and to the 
Sriaster which they suppose God has given them, support their pretensions to that distinction 
just as strongly as the Bible does those of the Jews ? And could not we, in their present con- 
dition, find as much proof that Deity had become offended with them, as we can, in the present 
condition of the Jews, that God is offended with thorn? 

Let us now look at those predictions, that are said to foretell a Messiah, and to have been 
fulfilled by Jesus. I know of three only that are worthy of notice. 

The first commences at the thirteenth verse of the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah, and extends 
through the subsequent chapter. 

It is a sufficient answer, for the present, to this description of the " servant of the Lord," 
as he is called, to say, that it is so indefinite, that it would apply to many others as well as to 
Jesus — and even if it delineated the character and history of Jesus a little more nearly than 
those of any other person, still it is entirely too indefinite to furnish any thing- like reasonable 
grounds for believing that Isaiah foresaw either a Messiah, his Character or history. Almost 
every paragraph, that applies with any justness to Jesus, would also apply equally well to a 
great number of those men who pretended to be prophets, and who were killed by the Jews. 

In the twenty-third chapter of Matthew (30th, 31st, and 34th verses), Jesus accuses the 
Jewish nation of having- "persecuted, scourged, killed and crucified the prophets, the wise 
men and scribes, which had been sent unto them." In the thirty-seventh verse he says, "O ! 
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee," 
&c. It appears from these declarations, that if Isaiah intended by bis description of a "ser- 
vant of the Lord," only a general description of the characters and fates of those, who, in dif- 
ferent ages of the Jewish nation, professed to speak to the Jews in the name of the Lord, his 
language would apply to them, with the same propriety that it would to Jesus ; and it is far 
more probable that he should have had those men in his mind than a Messiah, because he had 
personal opportunity of observing their characters and fates. They were men, to whom the 
Jews not only refused to listen, but whom also (as appears by the language of Jesus before 
quoted) they treated with the greatest indignity, insult and cruelty. They, far more than Jesus, 
might be said to be "men of sorrows and acquainted with grief," for they could have had but 
few friends or followers. They " had no form, or comeliness, or beauty, that caused them to be 
desired" — they were " brought as lambs to the slaughter" — they must have been, by those who 
believed in them, "esteemed stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted" — they were "cut off out 
of the land of the living" — they had " done no violence, nor was any deceit found in their 
mouths." They were probably inoffensive, deluded men, whose imaginations were filled with 
extravagant notions about God's intercourse with men, and his method of governing them ; and, 
owing to this cause, they were continually dreaming that God came to themselves, and com- 
manded them to declare to the Jews that this evil, and that evil, would come upon them, and 
that this and that great and important religious event was about to happen. But the Jews, 
having no confidence in them, persecuted and destroyed them. 

Isaiah speaks of the Almighty making the soul of his "servant an offering for sin" — and 
this language perhaps may at first view appear to have more relation to Jesus than it could 
have to a prophet. But, if — as all men of common sense, who disregard authority, believe — 
sacrifices are of no avail, and the doctrine that God requires them imputes to him, not only 
absurdity, but injustice also, and unnecessary and barbarous cruelty, then this intimation, that 
the soul of the "servant of the Lord" was to be made an offering for sin, is one, which Isa- 
iah could not have been dictated by God to have uttered, andit could with truth apply neither 
to Jesus, nor any one else. 

But should it yet be contended that Jesus was made an offering for sin, (a supposition, 
which certainly cannot be proved), it might then be replied that there can be little doubt that 
Isaiah, who, of course, believed in the utility of sacrifices, believed that every one of those, 
who were slain for preaching (as he supposed) in the name of the Lord, were made offerings 
for sin. It was perfectly natural that he should believe so. How otherwise would a man, 
with his views about God, about the moral condition of the Jews, about the necessity of sa- 
crifices, and about the religious character of those who were slain, account for the fact that 
God permitted them to be slain, than by supposing that they were made offerings for sin? 

If he considered them offerings for sin, it was then perfectly natural for him to believe that 
these sacrifices would redeem many, and that the individuals, supposed to be offered as sacri- 
fices, would "see their seed," (for those redeemed by them could be called their seed, with 
the same propriety that those redeemed by Jesus could be called his seed) — that they " should 
see the travail of their souls and be satisfied," Sec. So that considering this description of 
the " servant of the Lord," in whatever light we may, it will still apply to many of these 
supposed prophets with nearly, if not entirely, the same force that it would to Jesus, even if 
he were what Christians suppose him to have been. 

There are strong reasons for believing that Isaiah referred to such, generally, as he esteem- 
ed the servants and prophets of the Lord, but who were despised and persecuted by the Jews. 
6 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 



Tf hn mflftnt a Messiah, and if he himself were actually a prophet, why did he not (as well as 

Darid^ inStead ° f ° ne S ° ind n finitB "^ g u nera m ,tS f Ppl r tl0n M 

. Daniel) useuie Messiah, why did he not tell us more about him— when he would 

S!to?^A^4!^& he'not describe him so that, when he should appear, he 

• i . iL wUnfifio,] hv thp Tpws and distinguished from all others r 
"t S ac Lally mean a Messiah-what then? The fact that Isaiah expected 

m". ; 'o that he dreamed or imagined that the Lord told him a Messiah was to come, 
Sc^t^^-n!hSf5S ever wis to be a Messiah The fact that the whole Jewish 
nation expected a Messiah, is no evidence that a Messiah was actually to come, rhe '.com- 
bined facts, that a Messiah was predicted, that a Messiah was generally expected by the in- 
habitants of Judea, that he was expected near a particular time, and that, about that time, 
one or seventy appeared, each pretending to be the Messiah, do not prove, or have any sort 
of tendency to prove, that there ever was, or ever was to be, any such being as a Messiah. 
Judffinff naturally on all these facts, they are only evidence that some superstitious man, 
whose head was full of marvellous thoughts about what God vyould do for those whom the 
individual supposed to be his favorite nation, dreamed, or imagined that God told him, that 
He would send a Messiah; that this individual proclaimed what he supposed God had told 
him- that the nation, who were always ready to expect some extraordinary interposition in 
their behalf, were favorably struck with the idea of a Messiah; that the belief, that one would 
come, became prevalent; a'nd that, in consequence of that general belief, a great many, were 
so infatuated as to imagine, or so dishonest as to pretend, (knowing the contrary), that they 
themselves were the individuals appointed by God to be Messiahs, and did actually claim to 
be such. There is nothing mysterious, or supernatural, or improbable, in such a combination 
of facts' They all, in a community so superstitious as that of Judea, would naturally follow 
the simple one, that some priest, or some one whom the people regarded as a prophet, ima- 
gined that God would send a Messiah, or dreamed that God told him he would send one. 

This idea of a Messiah is one, that would be very likely to occur to the mind of a priest, 
or one who should believe himself a prophet, among a people like the Jews, who believed in 
sacrifices, believed themselves the special favorites of God, and believed also that God fre- 
quently interposed miraculously for their welfare, This priest, from the nature of his office 
and employment, would naturally have his mind occupied with thoughts about God's inten- 
tions respecting his favorite people, and his designs in relation to their religious welfare. It 
would be nothing remarkable if such an individual, who should imagine that there was a ne- 
cessity for some radio interposition of God in favor of his people, and should believe that God 
frequently sent messengers to them, should hit upon the idea that God, in order to meet this 
new and uncommon necessity, would send an extraordinary messenger to them, and, (since 
this priest believed in the necessity of sacrifices), that he should also believe that this messen- 
ger would be made a sacrifice for the sins of the nation. Nor would it be remarkable, if such 
an idea, expressed by a priest, for whom the people had some veneration, or by a supposed 
prophet, should strike the minds of so superstitious a people as the Jews so favorably,. and as 
being so probable, that the belief should become prevalent, that God had supernaturally con- 
veyed this idea to the mind of the priest, or supposed prophet, and, of course, that it would 
be realized. If such were the fact, it would then be very natural that, among a people where 
many were so infatuated as to imagine themselves prophets, there should be many, who 
should imagine themselves, or claim to be, Messiahs— and if a supposed prophet had predict- 
ed the time of the coming of this Messiah, that would be the time when these deluded or 
dishonest Messiahs would appear, and proclaim their characters, and set up their claims. 

Supposing such to have been the cause of the appearance of all the pretended Messiahs 
that appeared about the time of Jesus, and supposing him to have been one of these deluded 
or dishonest men, the mystery of the fulfilment (such as it was) of the prediction is then all 
explained in a natural and probable manner, with the exception of Jesus's being put to death, 
—a fact, which cannot be explained bv the existence of any general belief that the Messiah 
was to be cut off— since Jesus was not crucified on account of any intention, on the part of 
those who crucified him, to make good the prediction. Still, if it be said that his being slain 
is a proof of the prophesy, and of his being the Messiah, then, the answer is, that others of 
these pretended Messiahs were also slain— so that bv this means also it is impossible to iden- 
tify the real Messiah. ' 

One of these- pretended Messiahs was killed by order of Festus;* another was burnt alive by 
ISSSm* a Theucas got a sect after him (probably under the pretence of being the 

sla?n I krn w nn7 S t™ * "k \ ? U °u ° Ue JudaS ' < ActS 5 ~36 and 37). How many others were 
J^ephusTBoS -icLr^t " ^^ " C ° nsiderable nUmbei * ° f th *m were. (See 

^ ff Slt eS) fV h % MeSS , iah shoul(1 be ofFered as a saertfce for sin, (if in reality 
as we 11 as to Je u *W ??$' ™° uld doubtless "PP* to some, and perhaps to many, others. 

But I nnnrth. h J? ♦ nl* — e °° there is a Gom p!ete failure of identify. 

*ut I appiehend that Christians, who may read this book, will, before they have gone 

*See Newton on the Prophecies, Chap. 19. 
t Same. ■ 



THE PROPHECIES. 43 

through with it, find .still another difficulty in the way of their making Jesus answer the de 
scription of their predicted Messiah. That difficulty will consist in their inability to prove 
that Jesus was ever slain at all. I think they will find that the evidence, instead of proving 
that he was slain, comes much nearer proving directly the reverse, viz : thai he was not slain. 
If such should be the case, their Messiah will then most surely be "cut off." Should the 
fact of his death lie left, by the evidence, in the least uncertainly, the prediction, as applica- 
ble to him, must, be considered to have failed; because prophecy, no more than any other super- 
natural event can be reasonably proved by doubtful evidence. Both the prediction and the 
fulfilment must be incontestibly established, or no prophecy is shown. 

Another prediction, that was to be noticed, is in Daniel 9tb, — 35 and 26.* It is here stated 
that the Messiah shall appear in sixty-nine weeks " from the going forth of the command- 
ment to restore and build Jerusalem," which appears, from the context, to have been about 
the time of the prediction. Commentators have said that a week here means seven years. 
Whether they have sufficient authority for saying so, I neither know nor care. Still," if by 
calling it seven years, instead of seven days, the prediction can be made to look any more 
nearly like a prophecy, why, then call it seven years. The time for the appearing of the 
Messiah would then be fixed at the period of four hundred and eighty-three years from the 
time of the prediction. Did Jesus appear precisely at that time? The little search I have 
made does not enable me to settle that question, or to say certainly whether any one else ever 
did. I can only say that I have never known it to be even hinted that he did. He undoubt- 
edly appeared about that time, as did a great number of others; and the reason why all ap- 
peared near that time, undoubtedly was, that that was the time when a Messiah was expected. 
In the twenty-sixth verse it is said that " after three score and two weeks, Messiah shall 
be cut off." Calling the week seven years, in this case as in the other, the true Messiah ought 
then to have lived four hundred and thirty-four years; (He was to have been a marvellous 
personage in point of age as well as in other respects) — but Jesus lived to be only about 
thirty-two or thirty-three years old — leaving the slight deficiency of four hundred years. 

There is no way, that I have discovered, by which the believer can get rid of this dilemma. 
If the week mean but seven days, Jesus did not, in the first place, appear at the proper time 
for the true Messiah, and he also lived too long; but if we call the week seven years, then he 
did not live long enough. 

But this prediction fails in another particular. Daniel calls " the Messiah, the Prince." 
He then says, after having previously spoken of " the commandment to restore and build Je- 
rusalem," that "the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times." It is 
evident from this language and the context, that Messiah was to be a temporal prince, and it 
is probable that he was to restore and build Jerusalem. 

Daniel says also, that " after three score and two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, and the 
people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the City and the sanctuary," &c. It is evi- 
dent from this language also, that Messiah was understood to be a temporal prince, and that 
he was to be succeeded by a foreign prince and an enemy. 

Passages also in the New Testament, applied to Jesus by his biographers, show that a tern 
poral prince had been expected. Matthew (2 — 6) represents one of the old supposed pro- 
phets as saying that "out of Bethlehem should come a Governor, that should rule God's 
people Israel." Luke also (1 — 69, 71) puts into the mouth of Zecharias a prediction, that 
the nation was to be saved by the Messiah "from their enemies, and from the hand of all 
them that hated them." Such things could be spoken only of a temporal ruler or deliverer. 
There can be no doubt, indeed all Christians admit, that the Jews expected a temporal 
prince, (although perhaps one, who was also to be made a spiritual sacrifice, after having lib- 
erated the nation from all its temporal dangers and calamities), and the language of Daniel, 
above quoted, most clearly authorized that expectation. To say that it did not, is to say no 
less than that since that time words have changed their meaning. If then such were the true 
meaning of the prediction, Jesus certainly fulfilled it not in the least tittle, and of course was 
not the Messiah. But if such were not its meaning, the least that can then be said of the 
prediction, is, that it was made in such deceitful language as to cheat the Jews, and prevent 
their identifying the true Messiah, whenever he might appear. 

Unless the prediction described the Messiah so accurately that he could be unequivocally 
identified, certainly it was no prophecy. Such was the case here. The very people, to whom 
it was predicted that he should be sent, and whom he was to redeem and reign over, did not 
identify him in the person of Jesus. He did not in any important particular, or at least in 
any greater degree than many others, answer the description; and therefore, even if he were 
the true Messiah, the Jews did rightly in rejecting him, because it was their duty to be gov- 
erned by the description. 

Furthermore, it is evident, from various circumstances, that Jesus himself originally under- 
stood the prediction as did the Jews, and that he did, at one time, expect to have become a 
temporal prince. 

* Connected with this prediction about a Messiah is one circumstance, that shows that Daniel knew 
nothing of what he was talking about; and that is, that when predicting that Jerusalem should sometime 
be destroyed, he savs " the end thereof shall be with a flood" — whereas (unluckily for inspiration) such 
happened not to be the fact. 



44 THE deist's reply. 

The particulars of his journey from the mount of Olives to Jerusalem, recorded by Mat- 
thew (21— 1 to 11), Mark (11), Luke (19—28 to 44) and John (12— 12 to 15), show that he 
at that time expected to have been received, as King of the Jews. Matthew says "a very 
great multitude" attended him; that they spread even their garments in the way; that they 
cut down branches of tivees and strewed them in the way, and that they cried, " Hosanna to 
the Son of David. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Mark says they 
cried " Blessed be the Kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord." 
Luke says they cried " Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord." John 
says that much people, that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to 
Jerusalem, took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried " Hosanna, 
blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord." Is there here room 
for the slightest reasonable doubt that this multitude believed him to be a temporal prince, 
specially sent by God to rule over the Jewish nation? There certainly can be none, justified 
and authorized as such a belief was, in relation to the Messiah, by the predictions of those 
whom the Jews supposed to be prophets. The question then arises, how came this multi- 
tude, at this time, to believe him to be their temporal king? Why, in this way only, viz: he 
himself must have directly or indirectly given to their minds the impression that he was to be, 
or it could not have become so general among them — and if he did either create, or sanction 
that impression, he must himself have expected to be a temporal prince, or he intentionally 
deceived this multitude. By barely consenting to be attended by this great body of men, by 
these shouts, and these hosannas, and by approaching Jerusalem in this triumphal and kingly 
manner, he proves that he either expected to have been made a king, or that he practised a 
deception on the people — for, be it remembered, he could not have been ignorant that these 
demonstrations of loyalty were offered to him, by his attendants, solely because they thought 
he was about to become their king. John has removed all doubt that they were so offered. 
He says (12 — 16) that even " Jesus's disciples understood not these things at the first," that 
is, at the time, and on the spot, they did not understand that he was to be a spiritual king — 
and if they did not, there is but one answer to the question, what did they understand him to 
be? But John adds, in substance, that "when Jesus was glorified," they then saw what 
their conduct had meant, and how they had in reality been paying their homage to a spiritual 
prince under the mistaken apprehension that he was to be an earthly one. The amount of 
this ridiculous equivocation is, that Jesus took to himself, at this time, the Hosannas which 
he must have known were intended for another, and trusted to the future, when he should be 
ft glorified," to set the matter right — or, in other words, that, for the time being, he practised 
a little pious deception, for the glory of God, and the good of that spiritual kingdom, which 
he was laboring to establish. 

If Christians would save the character of Jesus for honesty and plain dealing, they must 
disclaim for him this miserable trick that John attributes to him, and must acknowledge that 
he intended to have become a king. All the accounts of this transaction go to show that such 
was the fact, that he expected to have been received as king at that time; that he rode that 
ass's colt solely because he knew that* " it had been written, Behold thy King cometh, sitting 
on an ass's colt," and that he supposed the Jews would therefore consider his being mounted 
on an ass good evidence of his right to be their king. 

It is manifest also that he was disappointed in the reception he met with as he approached 
Jerusalem. Luke says (19 — 89) the Pharisees told him to rebuke his followers. This inci- 
dent shows that the Pharisees would not acknowledge him as king. From this occurrence, 
and from what follows, it seems hardly possible to doubt, that Jesus then saw that he could 
not be king. He then, as he naturally would if such were the case, (1 here, on account of its 
importance, repeat substantially what I have said in a former chapter), "falls into a lamen- 
tation for the fate of the City — not for the souls of the Jeivs, as he would have been likely to 
do, if he had intended to be only a spiritual redeemer, but for the fate of the City itself. He 
virtually says (Luke 19 — 42 to 44) that if the Jews had but received him as king, their City 
would have been preserved; but since they had rejected him, the City would be destroyed. 
He says that " enemies shall compass it around, shall cast a trench about it, and keep it in on 
every side, and lay it even with the ground," &c. This is not the language of a purely spir- 
itual deliverer — it is precisely such language as we might: reasonably expect to hear from a 
man, who wished to make himself the ruler of a people, but who, on being rejected as such, 
should endeavour to alarm their fears for the safety of their City. Or it is such language as 
we might reasonably expect to hear from a man so deluded as to imagine that God had spe- 
cially appointed him to be the deliverer of a people, and the preserver of a City. Such an 
one, on finding that he would not be accepted as king, would naturally infer, that inasmuch 
as the deliverer, whom God had appointed to save the city, had been rejected, the city would 
of course be destroyed." 

In these facts too is to be found the secret of the prediction, that he made soon after, (Mat. 
23 — 37 to 39, and c. 24 — Mark 13 — Luke 21), respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
which has been regarded as wonderful evidence of his power of prophecy. How wonderful 
the evidence is, here clearly appears. The fact, that Jerusalem was afterwards destroyed, 
has nothing to do with the prediction; because we can see the grounds, and probably the only 
grounds, on which he formed his opinion that it would be destroyed — grounds sufficient to lead 



THE PROPHECIES. 45 

such a man, as I have supposed him to be, to believe that it would be destroyed, or to predict 
that it would, whether he thought so or not — :iud we are not to suppose him possessed of the 
power of prophecy, when his language can be accounted for without such a supposition. 

But to return to the inquiry — did Jesus ever attempt to make himself king of the .lews? 
Another important item of testimony to prove this fact, is, that it was very soon after this tri- 
umphal ride from the Mount of Olives, to Jerusalem, that he was apprehended and crucifi- 
ed, and the universal charge against him then was, that he had set himself up to be King of 
the Jews. 

As the remaining evidence of his design to make himself king of the Jews, has probably 
been sufficiently set forth in the former chapter on the nature and character of Jesus, it need 
not here be repeated. 

Perhaps some persons may think it rather extraordinary that a man like Jesus should have 
conceived such a design as that of making himself a king. But if such persons look at Jose- 
phus (Book '2d — Chap. 13, &c. &c.) and at Newton on the Prophecies, Chap. 19, — they will 
iind that, about the time of Jesus, characters very much like him, were no great novelties 
among the Jews. 

If these views arc correct, Jesus did not, although he labored to do so, answer the predic- 
tion concerning a Messiah, viz: that he was to be a temporal king— but was simply a deluded 
or dishonest man, like many others, who set up similar pretensions, and all his talk about be- 
ing "sent of God," 8tc, was but the insane gibberish of a deluded fanatic, or the knavish 
pretences of an impostor. 

But supposing - the predicted Messiah to have been intended only as a spiritual prince — even 
then Jesus does not answer the description. This Messiah was to be ''-the glory of God's 
people Israel." lie was " to save God's people from their sins." By " God's people," as then 
understood by the authors of the Bible, were meant the Jews. Jesus also himself virtually 
predicted that he should redeem the Jews, for he appointed his disciples in number correspond- 
ing with the number of the original tribes of Jews, and he also promised to these twelve dis- 
ciples that they should sit (Christians must say, in heaven, although he at the time probably 
meant on earth) on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He, by these acts, 
and by his whole conduct, showed that he expected to have redeemed the Jews. But none of 
these predictions or expectations have been fulfilled. Some Christians believe that the Jews 
will sometime be converted to Christianity — but where is the foundation for such a belief? Je- 
sus can never answer the description given of the Messiah any better than he did while on 
earth, and therefore there is no reason why the Jews should ever believe him to have been the 
Messiah. Even if we suppose that the Jews, at the time when Jesus was alive, were mistaken 
as to his character, still, if eighteen centuries do not afford a sufficient time for them to dis- 
cover their mistake, how long a time will probably be necessary? 

But, further, if a Messiah were necessary to redeem the Jews, was it not just as important 
to redeem those Jews who have died during the last eighteen centuries, as to redeem any that 
may live hereafter? 

Since the time of Jesus about sixty generations of Jews have died, without being redeemed, 
as believers must say; and yet these same believers virtually say, that if the Jews should here- 
after be converted to Christianity, Jesus will then fairly answer the description of that Messiah 
who was to be the Saviour of the Jewish nation. Every generation is a nation of itself, and 
if Messiah was not to save either of the first sixty nations of Jews that should succeed him, the 
prophet ought to have been more explicit in designating what nation of Jews he would save. 

To say that Jesus would have saved the Jews, if they would but have received him, is no an- 
swer to the objection. If a man predict that a certain event will come to pass, he virtually 
predicts that every necessary intermediate event will also happen. And if a supposed prophet 
predicted that a Messiah should redeem the Jews, such a prediction was equivalent to one that 

they would believe on him — and if they did not believe on him — no matter for what reason 

the prediction then failed as essentially as if no pretended Messiah had ever offered to save 
them. 

Jesus, then, did not come in the same character, (of a temporal prince) that it was predicted 
Messiah would come in ; — nor has he been received by that nation, who, it was predicted, would 
receive the Messiah. We therefore have no authority, on the ground of prophecy, for believ- 
ing that he was the expected Messiah ; on the contrary, we have much express authority for 
believing that he was no Messiah at all. 

The remaining prediction relating to a Messiah, which was to be noticed, is, that he was to 
be of the family of Jesse, and a Son of David. Matthew (1) and Luke (3) have attempted to 
show that Jesus was a descendant of David — and how have they attempted to show.it? Why, 
solely by pretending to trace the genealogy of Joseph, who, as they both agree, was not his fa- 
ther, but simply became the husband of his mother a short time before the birth of Jesus. 
They might therefore with the same propriety have traced their own genealogies, in order to 
prove that Jesus was a descendant of David, as that of Joseph. 

This blunder, it would seem, besides proving that there is not the slightest ground for the 
pretence that Jesus was a descendant of David, must also be considered as having a slight ten- 
dency to show how much those two stupid blockheads knew. 



46 the deist's reply. 

These chroniclers, who, with all good fidelity, did so much for Dosterity, have also shown, in 
attempting to trace the genealogy of Joseph, an accuracy, a faithfulness, and a knowledge of the 
importance of being exact in ail matters of revelation, corresponding to the character of their 
inte lects. Luke makes there to have been forty generations between Joseph and David, while 
Matthew connects the two by a chain of less than thirty, and running through an almost total- 
ly diffen ni list of names. Even it' Joseph had been the acknowledged father of Jesus, a disa- 
greement of this kind would prove that there was no more reason for pretending that Jesus was 
a descendant of David, than for pretending that he was a descendant of any other Jew, who 
mii> lit he named at random from among those who lived in the times of David. 

The necessary falsehood of one or the other, and the probable falsehood of both, of these 
pretended genealogies, would tend to discredit any but an inspired book. 

Let us now examine Jesus's own predictions, and see how he sustained the character of a 
prophet. 

His only important predictions, that I have discovered, are included in the twenty-fourth 
chapter of Matthew, and in the last three verses of the preceding chapter. Mark also in his 
thirteenth, and Luke in his twenty-first chapter, have recorded a part of the same predictions, 
although not so fully as Matthew. 

The only one of his predictions, which has been fulfilled, and which is definite and impor- 
tant enough -to have any claims to be noticed, js that which foretels the destruction of the 
temple. 

It is evident from the whole of Matthew's record of the prediction, (beginning at the 37th 
verse of the 23d chapter), that Jesus did not intend to convey the idea that the temple was de- 
voted to any particular destruction, distinct from that which was to hefal the City at large. He 
merely speaks of the destruction of the temple, because they happened to be standing by it, 
and speaking of it — but he only conveys the idea that it would be involved in the general ruin. 

I attempted, on a former page, to account for this prediction, in this way, viz : Jesus had read 
in the Old Testament, that Messiah was to be a temporal prince, who was to be raised up spe- 
cially by God for the purpose of saving the Jewish nation, perhaps from their sins, but especial- 
ly from their enemies, and he inferred, as he reasonably might from these premises, that some 
great temporal danger threatened the nation, and that an extraordinary deliverer was necessary 
to save them from this danger. He believed himself to be, or dishonestly wished to make 
others believe him to be, this Messiah, this appointed deliverer and king. When then he found 
himself rejected by this nation, whom he supposed, or dishonestly pretended, that he was to have 
saved, he inferred as a matter of course, or threatened as a matter of policy, that the calamity 
would come upon them. He would also, in such a case, naturally infer, if honest, or threaten, 
if dishonest, that this calamity should come soon, and therefore he ventured to predict that it 
would come in the course of one generation. 

The last three verses of the twenty-third chapter of Matihew tend strongly to confirm this 
view. The language of Jesus, as there recorded, evidently means this. " O ! Jerusalem, I 
would have protected thy children as a hen protects her chickens under her wings, but they 
ivould not suffer me to do it — now therefore their house (homes, or possibly temple) shall become 
desolate, for I say unto you they shall not see their deliverer, until they will receive the one 
that was sent to them by the Lord (to wit : myself"). 

If such be a correct view of his thoughts, and a fair interpretation of his language, the ques- 
tion is at an end, for here we see sufficient causes to induce a man like him to make such a pre- 
diction — and we are not to suppose him a prophet, if we can account for his language in any 
other way, because it is unphilosophical to attribute, to supernatural causes, things that might 
have been naturally produced. 

But beside the reasonableness, and the manifest probability of the above supposition, there 
are one or two other circumstances, that corroborate its truth. One is, that but a short time 
before this prediction was made, (as appears by the order in which the two events are recorded 
both by Matthew, Mark and Luke), and immediately after his triumphal ride from the mount of 
Olives to Jerusalem, and his (unquestionable) rejection as king by the Pharisees and principal 
men of the Jews, he, apparently in the midst of the disappointment or chagrin occasioned by 
that rejection, uttered a prediction or threat almost precisely similar to the one we have now 
been considering, (Luke 19—39 to 44). 

Another circumstance tending most satisfactorily to confirm the above view of this matter, 
is that he could not fix the time when the temple should be destroyed. He only ventured to say 
that it would be in the course of that generation, but expressly told his disciples (Mark 13 — 32) 
that he did not know cither the day or the hour when the event would happen. 

If he had the power of foreseeing future events, why could he not have known the time of 
the occurrence, as well as the occurrence itselt? 

Let us now look at some of his predictions, that were not fulfilled. 

He predicted (Mat. 24— 3, &c.) that "the end of the world" should come in the course of 
that generation. But here we are met by the reply, that he did not mean that the end of the 
world itself would come, or, in other words, that he said what he did not mean, (a practice, to 
which, according to modern Christians, he was very much addicted). But if he did not mean 
what he said, what did he mean? " I don't know," says the Christian, "but I think he must 



THE PROPHECIES. 47 

have meant this, or if he did not, perhaps he meant that — but I am sure he could not have meant 
the end of the world, because if he had, the end of the world would have surely come." This 
logic is so satisfactory, that I might perhaps despair of convincing a believer on this point, were 
there no external evidence tending to prove that Jesus, in this particular case, meant as he said„ 
It therefore very fortunately happens that such evidence is to be found. For example, — he had 
told his disciples the same thing before. In Matthew 16 — 28, he holds to them this solemn and 
unequivocal language, "verily, 1 say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. 

We have 'also further evidence that the twelve understood him to mean the end of the world, 
and what they understood him to mean, Christians cannot deny to be his true meaning. Peter 
declares (Acts 2 — 16 and 17) on the day of Pentecost, that the conduct, which the apostles had 
there exhibited, was that, which it had been predicted by Joel, should happen "in the last 
days." Peter also, in his first epistle 4 — 7, says, "the end of all things is at hand." Paul 
also (1 Thess. 4 — 15 to 17) speaks of Christ's coming as an event, that was to take place dur- 
ing the lifetime of some of those whom he was addiossing. John also (Rev. 1), speaks of it as 
an event near at hand. 

Jesus also said that the time of the destruction of the temple should be the time of his com- 
ing, (Mat. 24—3, &c). It is manifest from this circumstance too that he supposed the end of 
the world, and the destruction of the temple would happen at one and the same time, for he 
would not, of course, have fixed the time of his coming before the end of the world. 

It was natural also that he should suppose the end of the world and the destruction of the 
temple and city of Jerusalem would happen at the same time, because both the temple and the 
city were esteemed sacred, and as under the special protection of God, and it was therefore 
natural for those, who believed thus, to suppose that God would not permit them to be destroy- 
ed before the rest of the world. 

And here too we find another false prediction, viz: in relation to the time of his coming. 
He has here left no doubt of his meaning, for he particularly described the manner of his com- 
ing — and this manner is just such as we mightreasonably suppose a deluded man would picture 
in his imagination, or an impostor conjure up to impose upon the miserable dupes who were hiss 
followers. He said (Mat, 24— 30 and 31) that " all the tribes of the earth should see him, 
coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." And, said he, "he shall send his 
angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four 
winds, from one end of heaven to the other." 

That his disciples understood this prediction as one that, was to be fulfilled literally, is suffi- 
ciently proved by Paul's declaration before referred to, (1 Thess. 4—15 to 17), where he says 
explicitly that " the Lord himself shall descend trom heaven with a shout, with the voice of the 
Archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first : then we, which 
are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord, in 
the air." 

His predicting also that he should "gather his elect" at the time of the destruction of the 
temple, shows that he intended to say that the end of the world would then come. But he has 
never thus come to gather his elect, and this is the third false prediction. 

There is still a fourth. He said (Mat. 24 — 14) that before these occurrences should happen, 
" this gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all nations, and to this declaration, as well 
as to the others, he adds this sweeping clause, that "this generation shall not pass till all these 
things be fulfilled." None pretend that in the course of that generation his gospel was preach- 
ed in all nations. The most that is pretended, is, that some one or other of his apostles 
preached in all the principal nations with which they were acquainted. But the prediction was 
that it should be preached in all nations, and if it were not so preached, the prediction failed, 
let the cause of the system's not being preached, be what it may. Jesus himself was probably 
as ignorant of what nations there were in the world as his apostles, for he gave them no direc- 
tions unless this general one, to preach every where. 

But not only the letter of this prediction failed, but the spirit of it also failed even in relation 
to those countries that were known and visited by the apostles. The great mass of men in 
those countries, during that generation, had no proper opportunity to hear the doctrines of the 
apostles, to learn the character of their system, and to judge of its truth. A great portion 
probably, so general was the ignorance that prevailed, did not, for the first forty years after the 
death of Jesus, know any thing of consequence respecting him. The apostles just set foot, as 
it were, in various countries, but the mere setting foot in a country did not spread a general 
and full knowledge of Christianity throughout that country — yet it ought so to have done in 
order to fulfil the spirit of this prediction. Jesus undoubtedly meant, that within the period 
mentioned, bis religion should be made so universally known, that all, who would, might have an 
opportunity to embrace it, and be saved. 

Here then are four several predictions, viz: that the end of the world would come — that he 
himself would come visibly in the clouds of heaven — that his angels should gather his elect 
from the four winds, — and, that his gospel should be preached in all the nations ef the earth, in 
the course of the then present generation — all of which predictions proved false nearly eigh- 
teen centuries ago. 



48 the deist's REPLY. 

There is no room for any quibble on his language, or for pretending that these predictions 
were carelessly or thoughtlessly made. After having described the events in plain and unam- 
biguous terms, he adds (Mat. 24 — 34) "verily, I say unto you, this generation shall noi pass, 
till all these things be fulfilled." He goes still farther, and follows even this declaration with 
one of the most solemn asseverations that man could utter. Says he (Mat. 24 — 35) "Heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." 

This dishonest or infatuated man was predicting events, of the occurrence of which he knew 
nothing, for time has proved that those various predictions, and that solemn asseveration were 
falsehoods. 

These predictions of Jesus, in relation to his gospel's being preached throughout the world, 
his coming, his gathering, his elect, &c, have thus far been considered as having reference to 
events of a religious character, and as such have been shown to be false. But there is another 
and more probable interpretation to be given to them, and that is, that they refer to a second at- 
tempt, which he then had in contemplation, to make himself king of the Ji 

There are many circumstances tending strongly to confirm this view. One is, that this pre- 
diction, that he should come again, was made very soon after he had once attempted to get him- 
self accepted as king of the Jews, and had failed. It is natural that he should have it in his 
mind to make another effort, if he saw any possibility of his doing it with better prospects of 
success. And as he was looking forward to a time when the nation would be in danger from 
their enemies, it is natural that he should suppose that such a season of peril and calamity 
would be a favorable one for the triumph of his scheme. 

A great part of his account (Mat. 24) of the scenes that were to precede his coming, indicate 
that he expected only a temporary calamity to the Jewish nation, and that the declaration ascrib- 
ed to him, that the "end of the world" was then to come, must be a misrepresentation. 

His prediction that he should come " in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory," 
(if indeed he made such an one—which Deists are not at all bound to boll 
tent with the supposition that he intended to come as a temporal deliverer ; tor such a pi 
sion was hardly more extravagant than ought to have been expected from such a man ; nor was 
it too extravagant to gain credit among his disciples ; and it was indispensably necessary that 
he should hold out a very extravagant expectation of some sort in order lo keep up the delusion 
and faith of his ignorant followers until his arrival. Besides, lie said that his competitors 
(whom he called " false Christs") "should show great signs and wonders," and it 
sary that he should represent that the pageantry of his coining would be still more marvi 
than that of theirs, otherwise he could not have sustained his own reputation, in the eyes of his 
disciples, for being the true Messiah. He must also promise Bomething corresponding with the 
dignity of a Messiah, else his disciples would not have cared to wait for kirn, when they should 
be in the way of having so many opportunities and inducements, as he expected thej would 
have, to join the ranks of other pretended Messiahs. Finally, a man. who, like Jesus, could 
have the hardihood to assert, without ever putting any thing of that kind to tin i H peri- 

men t, that he could rebuild the temple of Jerusalem in three days, (John 2— 19), or that if he 
were but to call upon his father, the Almighty, he should immediately receive from him 
than twelve legions of angels to protect i, —53), <>r that ins followers, il 

had faith, could remove mountains, and cast them into the sea, (Mark II— 23), would not be 
very likely, particularly when, as in this case, his circumstances required a large story of 
kind, to stick at telling the foolish dupes, that followed him, and w< to swallow any 

thing from his lips, that he should sometime makes second appearance among them, and should 
then come in the clouds of heaven, &C. — especially if he could tell them, as he did in this in- 
stance, that it might be many years before the thing would happen. 

Another circumstance worthy of especial noticc,°is, that (Mat. 23— 37 to 30) a short time be- 
fore his prediction in relation to a second coming, after having declared how willingly he would 
have protected the people of Jerusalem, and how they would not permit him to do it. he pro- 
ceeded to say that calamity should come upon them, and'that "they should no' set him th> nxfoilh, 
until they should say blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Wh 
ing of such language as this, unless it be that he had resolved to ubsmt himself, until the i. 
should find itself so involved in danger that they would receive him gladly as their delivi 
Here then is an express intimation that he expected, at a future time, to come and b 
as the temporal deliverer of the nation. Now when wa< this second coming as a temper 
liverer to be, unless it were at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, as spoken of in the 
very next chapter, when he should come with power and gteat g! 

He tells his disciples also (Mat. 24— 14) that before the time of his next coining, "this gos- 
pel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nan :>-." It was 
expected by the Jews that under the reign of their Messiah, their nation would acquire _ 
temporal splendor, and trreat importance and high rank among the nations of the earth, and 
that people from all nations would flock together at Jerusalem. What then did Jesus mean, 
when he said that "this gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all the world for a wit- 
ness unto all nations," before the time of his coming ? Did he not mean that his project of an 
earthly kingdom, or the good news of the earthly kingdom, which he designed to establish should 
be so proclaimed abroad, that all, who should desire it, mirjht, at the time of his coming to take 



THE PROPHECIES. 49 

tbo throne, assemble and become subjects of his government? The terms used indicate most 
strikingly that such was his meaning. He does not say merely his gospel, nor does he say his 
spiritual gospel, nor his system of religion, nor the gospel of a future world ; but he says "this 
gospel of the kingdom." Besides, we ought to suppose that when he spoke of the kingdom, he 
alluded to some particular kingdom, with the idea of which his disciples were familiar — and 
yet, with the idea of what kingdom were they then familiar, except the kingdom of their ex- 
pected Messiah, which, as they all understood, was to be an earthly one ? They had, at that 
time, as Christians themselves admit, never dreamed of his kingdom being an heavenly one. 

He said also (Mat. 24 — 31) that his angels* " should gather together his elect from the four 
winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Now who were these " elect," that were to 
be "gathered together," from the four winds? Why, it is clear that they were living men, 
and that they w r ere to be gathered together at some place on the earth; for after describing 
the tribulation that should come upon Jerusalem as being so great, that unless the duration of 
it should be shortened, no "flesh should be saved," he adds (22d verse) that " for the elect's 
sake those days shall be. shortened" — that is, this time of calamity shall be shortened that the 
elect may not die in consequence of it. If therefore the " elect" were to be exposed to the 
distress attending the destruction of Jerusalem, and the time of that distress was to be short- 
ened that they might be saved from death, and if they were to be thus saved, they of course 
were living men. It is perfectly absurd to speak of any others, than men living on the earth, 
being saved from death at the sacking of a city. Now, these " elect," who were to be saved 
at the destruction of Jerusalem, were undoubtedly a part of those " elect," who were to be 
" gathered together" immediately afterwards, at the time of his coming; and those, that were 
to be gathered from other nations, or " from the four winds," were doubtless of the same kind 
of " elect," that is, living men. 

Considering it settled, therefore, that these elect were living men, and that they were to be 
gathered together on the earth, what could be the object of Jesus in thus gathering them to- 
gether, unless it were to compose his kingdom ? He, of course, would hot wish to cany these 
living men's bodies to heaven, and if he wished to carry their souls there, it probably would 
not be absolutely necessary to " gather them together" for that purpose — much less to gather 
their living bodies together, as it appears that he intended to do. 

That the Jews expected that, under the reign of their Messiah, people would be gathered 
from all nations to compose his kingdom, the following passages, selected from the many of 
similar import in the Old Testament, are abundant evidence. 

Isaiah 27 — 13. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, 
and they shall come, which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcast in 
the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem. 

Genesis 49 — 10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between 
his feet, until Shiloh (Messiah) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 

Isaiah 2 — 2. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's 
house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; 
and all nations shall flow unto it. 

Isaiah 11 — 10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an en- 
sign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek. 

Isaiah 11 — 12. And He (the Lord) shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assem- 
ble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners 
of the earth. 

Isaiah 55 — 4 and 5. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and 
commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and na- 
tions that knew not thee shall run unto thee. 

Is. 60 — 10, 11 and 12. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings 
shall minister unto thee. 

Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that 
men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 
For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be 
utterly w r asted. 

If these passages w r ere designed as predictions that Jerusalem was to be built up, as a tem- 
poral kingdom, under the reign of the Messiah, by accessions from foreign nations, we have 
here additional evidence that Jesus, when he predicted that his angels should gather his elect 
from the four winds, had in his mind the building up of a temporal kingdom; because he evi- 
dently had always intended to be guided by, and had always pretended to be destined to fulfil, 
the predictions which had been made concerning a Messiah. 

Another most important fact, and one which appears to me decisive evidence that Jesus, at 
his second coming, designed but to renew his attempts to make himself king of the Jews, is, 
that he expected to have competitors, (Mat. 24 — 23 to 28). It is admitted and asserted by 
Christians, and proved by history, that these pretended Messiahs, whom Jesus called " false 
Christs," were men who attempted to obtain the temporal government of the Jews. Yet 

■ Such angels probably as he referred to when he said he could call upon his father, and he would give 
him more than twelve legions of angels to protect him, (Mat. 26 — 53). 
7 



50 THE DEIST'S REPLT. 

these are the men, against whose pretensions Jesus found it necessary, in tie 
ner, to warn his disciples, lest they, mistaking one of these for himself, or fof the 
siah, should espouse the cause of a wrong one. The question here arises, whether ■ 
who is undisguisedly engaged in endeavoring to acquire temporal power, so nearly resembles 
a genuine Sou of God and spiritual Saviour, that men. who should once have been intimately 
acquainted with the latter, would not afterwards be able, without difficulty, to distinguish be- 
tween him and the former? A further question also arises, viz : whether men must nut have 
the same object in pursuit, in order to be such rivals to each other? 

Look now, but for a moment, at the monstrous absurdity iu\ oil ed in the interpretation, that 
must be given to this affair by Christians. They must admit that Jesus, at the very time 
he made these predictions in relation to his second coming, must ha\ e for< 

resurrection and ascension; and that he must also have known that these event! would open 
to the understandings of his disciples (what until then they are said never to have understood) 
the spiritual nature of his kingdom. He must have known that as Boon a- thes bould 

have happened, all their former misapprehensions as to the nature of bis reign would ii 
diately vanish; that all, that they had before misunderstood, w ould then become to their minds 
perfectly clear and certain; that they would then know, with the most absolute know: 
that he never had designed to be, and never would bean earthl\ d< li\ t-rer or k i n it ; thai 
siah was never to have been an earthly monarch; but that he was tin- genuine M- ssiah, and 
that his kingdom was solely spiritual, and he a purelj moral deliverer, rede< 
Christians must say also that at this time, (that is, at the time of making these predicti 
Jesus also knew that in a few years these very disciples would hai e, in a measure, establish* 
eda religion, bearing his name. And yet these same ( Ihristians must sa> further, that aid 
he foresaw all these things, he yet was troubled w Ufa fears lest these disciples, after the\ should 
have come to all this light, after they should be possessed <>f all tin- certain know 
his character and the nature of his kingdom, and even after the? should ha\e witness 
resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, ami should have I 
the establishment of his religion, might \ el forgi t all these things, and be deceit ed bj 
one of those vagabond leader- (for such, or little better than such, these false Chri 
of insurgent bands of Jews, into the belief that such leader, and not Je 
that they might be so hoaxed a- to espouse the cause of some one who should be atten 
to become a temporal king; might be cheated into the delusion that Bucfa an i 
Messiah instead of himself; and might be duped into the conviction tl who 

should be notoriously aiming at an earthly throne, was the " Seni of God," v 
ed to fulfil all that was expected to be done by their spiritual Saviour, Messiah, H 
&c, in relation to the spiritual redemption or the human i 
When before was such a bundle of absurdities ever offen d to tin en dulitj i 
But if we suppose that Jesus designed only to absent himself for a whi 
that he intended to do, when he said (Mat : i hould 

not see him again until they would be -lad to reC4 ive him), and then to col 
his attempt to make himself king of the Jews, In- conduct in warning In- disciples ap 
being enticed, in the mean time, into the train of the other pretended kings, is al 
explained; because it is perfectly natural, that under such circumstRners, he should 
that before his return, his followers might suspect, either that he would i 
that he was not the genuine Messiah, and might therefore abandon tl 
persuaded to attach themselves to son,,; of his ril 



CHAPTF.R V. 
The Resurrection. 

We Come now to the question of tie -,},e last of those alleg. 

pernatural events, the truth of which it is necessary to inquire into. 

Two solutions of this occurrence mm Ik tber of which, I apprehend, Will 

sufficient answer to all the evidence tending to prow a real return from death to ! 

1 he first, and perhaps most probable solution is, that the pel es was 

really Jesus, but that he had never been actually (]*■;■<]. 

1 he instances have been numerous, where criminals, win, have submitted to all the forms 
oi execution and have been supposed to have died as realK as an) others, fa 
oeen round alive. I he cases are also, as it were, of daily occurrence, where soldiers wouoeV 
f«„«i oaile ' 01 ; P er s°, nf5 f s,ckof somc common disease, have apparenth . I. erf and I 
wards returned to full |,f e . Now what does the circumstance of their t>< 
aiive, prove. w hy, it proves that the apparent death was onlv a temporan on of 

ft r^i "' T at they h J) ve never becn reQ,1 >' dead - '' '""' 

u pioves nothing more. Now will any man say that, in the case pernatural 



THE RESURRECTION", 51 

event is proved by evidence, which, in other cases, proves only a natural one? Or that, in 
his case, we are to presume an event to have been supernatural, when there have been rail- 
lions of natural ones precisely like it? If not, then he must admit, that the re-appearance of 
Jesus, is, of itself, positive proof that he had never been dead. 

But perhaps it will be said that the prediction of Jesus before his crucifixion, that, in three 
days after that event, he should rise from the dead, and the fact that, in three days he was 
found alive, furnish too extraordinary a coincidence to be attributed to any natural cause. 
One answer to this objection is, that there is no impossibility of such an event's taking place 
naturally, and that any thing, which is naturally possible, is in the highest degree probable, 
in comparison with an event, that is naturally impossible. Another answer is, that he did 
not rise in just three days, as he ought to have done to have properly fulfilled such a predic- 
tion. He died (or was supposed to die) about three o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, and 
he left the tomb at least as soon as sometime in the course of Saturday night; whereas he 
ought to have remained in it until the middle of the afternoon of the next Monday, in order 
to make the coincidence as remarkable as believers would have it understood to be. The 
probability is, that the time, during which he was in the tomb, instead of being three days, 
was even less than half that time. Still another answer to this objection is, that it is not pro- 
bable that Jesus ever predicted that he should rise from the dead at all. His alleged predic- 
tions of this kind all appear to have been made in such manner, as that none of his disciples 
so understood them, at the time. When the news first came to them that he was alive, it oc- 
casioned the greatest surprise among them. They considered the reports as but " idle tales," 
(Mark 16 — 10 to 13. Luke 24 — 11), "and they believed them not." They appear to have 
been wholly unprepared for such an occurrence. John also acknowledges (20 — 9) that pre- 
vious to the resurrection, they had not known " the scripture that he must rise from the dead." 
But when they find that he is really alive, they brush up their memories, and recal some 
things, which he had said, and which they now construe to have meant that he should rise 
again, although they had gathered no such idea from them at the time they were uttered. Is 
it not sufficiently manifest, from these facts, that all his alleged predictions in relation to his 
resurrection, either were never made at all, or were made in some such language as that in 
relation to his rebuilding the temple? a prediction, which John, after the re-appearance of 
Jesus, sagaciously construed to have referred to "the temple of his body," instead of the 
temple in which they stood when the words were spoken, (John 2 — 19 to 21). 

But it may be asked, if he did not mean to predict his death and resurrection, what did he 
mean, when he said, at the supper, the evening before he was taken, (John 13 — 33), "yet a 
little while 1 am with you. Ye shall seek me, and whither I go, ye cannot come?" and again 
(John 14 — 28) when he said " I go away and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye 
would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the father?" and again (John 1C — 16) when he said 
"a little while and ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me, because 
1 go to the Father?" It may be asked, I say, what he meant by these remarks, if he did not 
mean that he was going to die, and rise again? And it so happens that I have but this poor 
answer to give, viz: that if he did not moan that he was going to die and rise again, he prob- 
ably meant something a little more nearly like what he said: and that is, that he was going 
to be off for a while and then return again. Nothing would be more natural under the cir- 
cumstances in which he was then placed — he had found that he was in imminent peril of his 
life — his enemies were on the watch for him — Judas had already left the room to go and dis- 
close to the Chief Priests (as Jesus supposed) where he was; and he saw that it would not do 
for him to remain there longer. He therefore determined to abscond, as lie had sometimes 
done before, and return again to his disciples when the danger was over. But as he probably 
considered it unfavorable to secrecy to have a dozen men accompany him, he must give his 
disciples some reason why it was necessary for him to go alone — he therefore very judicious- 
ly told them " he was going to the Father." 

Now, if Jesus wished to have us believe that he intended, at this time, to predict that he 
was about to die and rise again on earth, why did he not predict it plainly? Why did he not 
do it in language that his disciples would have .so understood at the time? Why did he leave 
this prediction to be tortured, conjured or " glorified," after the events should have happen- 
ed, out of some remarks, which, when uttered, the disciples understood, and ought to have 
understood, as having reference to something else? " Undoubtedly for some ivise reason,^ 
will be the believer's wise answer. 

I have thought of but one other objection that can be made to the supposition that Jesus had 
never been dead. That objection rests upon the facts, that, after his re-appearance, he still 
claimed to be the Messiah. And it may, perhaps, be said, that if he had never been dead, he 
was dishonest in continuing to make these pretensions. One answer to this objection is, that 
it is a supposahle case, and much evidence has already been exhibited tending to show, that 
he was a dishonest man; and a second answer is, that if he had always been honest in ima- 
gining himself to be what he pretended to be, his return to life would naturally appear as 
wonderful and miraculous to himself, as to his disciples, and would tend to confirm, rather 
than weaken, the delusion which had previously occupied his mind. 

But there is no lack of evidence tending to prove that Jesus did not die, at the time of his 
crucifixion. Circumstances enough are related, to render it in a high degree probable that, 



52 the deist's rf.pi.v. 

when he was taken down from the 
him dead. 

In the first place, it does nut appear tliar I m his 

hands and feet, of course, were not; e 
was a dangerous one. It is certain that bis apparent d< 
torture on the cross, because it took pla< 
if be died at all, he did not die - the I'} - 

was dead before bis.side was pierced; but when thai 
in circulation. (John lit — 33 and ; * • » i on tin 

cisely that kind of torture, that would 
and apparent death, befoi i it is furtl 

very soon after the first Bwoooing, 
Joseph of Ariniathea went to I'ila 
marvelled ii' he were already dead," but h 
thereupon gave Joseph permission to take i! 
ately. Now the (act, that v. hen .1 

died -u Boon, i- sufficient ei idence that be hail but just then j i 

therefore be no reasonable doubi that I 
that was caused by his suspension on thi 
pose that a person, in this situation, and al I 

Let now the following facts be <■• 
had died so soon; 2d, tli.it u hi 
him, were still alive, 
we <■ crucified, it w as cusl 

rid thai hi 
after the first Bign of death; 5th, thai h<- pi 
that he \\ as not dead at the time h - 
blood), although th>' peop 
ered, 1 say, and it an ne that tl 

reasonable man <>f the probability tl 
euch a condi 

But he was not hit w ithout 
wound in th n gays a' 

body wis laid in 

but lin 

strong ; 

storatu 

How nexl 

. 
i 
pains in regard to thi 
withou 

they had nothing to do but 
i !hristiafl s 
a watch was set there for thi i 
matter of the • atch , 

evidei <v that, if the:-. 

In the first place, the si 
acts had been do 

awake, would ho 

If, or by Joseph ai 
these acts done, alone proves that they were asb • 

Bui even if Jesus \ joor, 

for an angel is represented to 

Nowj if the watch had b 

Jesus when he came out then, 

come out alone, or as they would I \ 

stance), who should have come ami taki n thi 

all when he came out. is alone stiff 

Again. It was perfectly natural that the u I safely 

deposited in a tomb, the door closed, and a stone 
very wakeful by any fear, either that the If would 

or that it would he stolen by men. \\ ho >hould know that a ■ -roba- 

Wy their feeling of security, that made them 
rolling of the stone, not the opening of the door, by whom 

but Matthew _i) that when Marv came to the sepulchre, an n 



THE RESURRECTION. 53 

away the stone from the door, and sat upon it, and that " for fear of him the keepers did 
shake, and became as dead men." 

Few probably will believe that an angel was there, simply because a simple, superstitious 
and timid woman imagined she saw one — at such a time and place too, where a woman, who 
believed in angels, would be more likely to see one than at any other. But there is no cer- 
tainty, I think I may say probability, that she even imagined that she saw one sitting on the 
stone, for Mark says nothing about her seeing an angel without the sepulchre, but says (16 — 
5) that the woman saw a young man clothed in a long white garment within the sepulchre; 
and Luke only says (-21 — 8 ^ 4) that after they had entered into the sepulchre; " tico men 
stood by them in shining garments," &c. John says nothing about Mary's seeing an angel at 
all the first time she went to the sepulchre. 

But perhaps the Christian will ask, if there were no angel there, why did these keepers 
appear " like dead men ?" Why, for the very good reason that they lay on the ground asleep, 
as 1 have supposed them to have done; and this undoubtedly is as far as they did resemble 
dead men. But Matthew says these "keepers did shake," and it may be argued that this 
could not be if the}' lay on the ground. To this it may be replied, that neither could they 
have " become like dead men," and yet continued standing. The unbeliever has a right to 
take his choice of these contradictory statements — I therefore take the last, that they " be- 
came like dead men." and then account for it by saying that they were asleep. The time 
when Mary saw these men in this situation was just at dawn of day, Matthew says; (John 
says (20 — 1) that the time of Mary's being there was " when it was yet dark"), and that is the 
rime when they would naturally be asleep. 

Matthew acknowledges that the watch told the Governor that they had been asleep; but 
vs that this .-ton- was a falsehood, and that the soldiers were bribed by the Chief Priests 
to teil it. But it is pretty certain that Matthew cither manufactured this story, so far as it 
relate^ to the falsehood ami bribery, or that he adopted it without knowing any thing of its 
truth — for how could he know that they had not slept? or hew could this outcast fisherman, 
or any <>f his feather, know any thing about the Chief Priests making a bargain with these 
soldiers? was be, or such fellow a as In', let into their counsels? 

The simple declaration of these soldiers is sufficient evidence that they were asleep, — for 

it is not in human nature that men, in their situation, knowing that .Jesus had pretended to be 

the Messiah, the Sou of God, &.C, should see an angel come and roll away the stone from the 

door of the sepulchre whore ho was buried, that they should feel such fear, on account of 

ig this angel, a- to "shake and become like dead men.*' ami then that they should all go 

ml deny -ill this, ami say that they hail been asleep. 

Srill less, if possible, i- ii in human nature, thai the Chief Priests, who knew what Jesus 
had claimed to bo. when thej learned that he bad risen from the dead, and knew also, as they 
then of necessity must, that ho was a being not to be controlled or baffled in his designs by 
them, should think of giving " large money" to these soldiers to hire them to say that the 
body hail been stolen. Men never would have dared do such a thing. But supposing them 
to have dared to do it, what could they expect to gain by such a fraud? or how long could 
they expect to conceal it? If the} knew that Jesus was alive, they could not but have been 
assured thai the facl would be immediately known; and they must also have been aware that 
ion as the facl should have become public, the falsehood of the soldiers would be exposed, 
and their own knaverj in the greatest danger of detection. The absurdity of pretending that 
men would act thus, under such circumstances, is so gross as to be perfectly disgusting. 

I here take it for -ranted thai it has been established, by evidence, which Christians must 
abide l»\ , that, if there were a watch at this tomb, they were asleep. There is still another 
subject of inquiry, viz. whether there were any watch at all there? The evidence is very 
Btrong tending to shew that there was none. 

In the first place, nobody but Matthew says any thing about there being any,' and his reputa- 
tion for truth is decidedly too bad to have any thing improbable, which, if true, would make 
for his cause, believed on the strength of his assertion. He has told too many stories about 
soldiers being bribed to tidl a falsehood, about Chief Prio.-t.v bribing them, about the earth 
quaking, rocks rending, graves opening, dr;,<\ rising, about sermons on the mount, i^c. Sec. to 
be entitled to any mercy when his statements are to be examined, or any credit when those 
statements are improbable. 

Matthew had a strong inducement to make up a story of this kind, if it were false. It ap- 
pears (28 — 1.] 8t 15) that, at the time he wrote, it was the current opinion among the Jews 
that the body was stolen from the tomb in the night. And he knew that this would be the 
natural inference of people in general, mil;-- something were told by the friends of Jesus to 
prove that such could n ol have been the case. He therefore says that there was a <j;uni-(\ 
there. Hut even when he has said this, he seems to be aware that he has not relieved his 
from all embarrassment, and that it is necessary lor him to account, in some way, for ihe 
fact, that the circumstance of a guard's being there did not satisfy the Jews, as well as him- 
self, that the body was not stolen. He could account for this in no way hut by Charging the 
soldiers with having told a falsehood, by which the Jews were deceived. He therefore de- 
clares that they did tell a falsehood, and in making this declaration, he shews that he himself 
was a man too dishonest to be trusted, because he certainly could not have known that they 



5 4 THE deist's replt. 

did not sleep On his own showing, therefore, be, without any certain knowledge of the 
facts in the case, contradicts those who did know them perfectly, and 
merelv because he savs so. that those others were all liar-, although he acknowledge* 
the Jewish nation believed, and continued to believe, that they told the truth, A very ■ 

m ?in truly 

But even when he has accused the Boldiers of lying, he has not done all thai 
to be done He must, in order to make this - nst then, believed, show that th. j 

some motive for lying. He therefore makes another charge, which he could not have k 
to be true even if it were true, against the Chief Priests, and sa) a tint they bri Idieri 

to do it. 'But even when he has done this, he has not cleared I lifficuln in 

which it is involved. It i- y that he should ah t for the fact that tl 

were not punished lor sleeping, when they had b 

it be but believed, will now make out his case— he therefore represents that tl 
—those wicked Chief Priests, who were full of all manner of iniquity- 
soldiers, according to agreement, and made such repi 
of course, unless lie means to charge th'' Governor also with corruptioi 

Such is Matthew's story— a story, that might b 
not that, like many other stories of the same author, it fail< 

The circumstance that neither .Mark. Lok in make any mention of mi 

very strong evidence that there was none; because they must almost 
that the way, in which tie for the abi from the tomb 

by supposing it to have been stolen; and. if they had common sense, they in 
that this supposition was a reasons ind that th< 

to contradict it, it was immenselj important to th< te them. 

not one syllable on the subject Besides, it' there bad 
an incident so prominent, Id think, that those men would fa 

mentioned it, even if they had noi seen its particular impo 

Another ground for believing thai th 
been no good reason why there should I I 

posed, and the body had been taken d »« ne- 

cessarv? But Mitt!; ned In i 

Pharisees, who wished to hai i 
that in three days be should rin N 

evident that even the disciples, not onh had 
he should rise again, but tnat they had not even heard hi 
sidered equivalent te such a d 

others hail heard such a Statemeol from ' 

thing about his rising again, tie 
•lid not exist; and it' that j. art of tl 
probably false. 

There is still another circumi bicb, in n h as a 

fabricatioci — and that is, that all tl 
hai e been made on the - 
tempt to conceal the fael ofth 

" the next day thai t*« »1 1> »\s ed tl 

does, had ran thus, " now 

unto Pilate" 8tc, the improbabiliti would I 

would notice it at the first glance; but 

lion, the Chief Priests ami P her unto I -t the 

improbability so readily, and was then fore the ! 
instance, notwithstanding h 

For m\ part I believe the whole oftbi 

lily of a more mnJ.vn knave than Matt he V4 
as honest as they are m>\\ ) probably 

One consideration i- lure trorthj <>f n 
probable that Jesus went, or p I. from the t, r than the n* 

It i> indeed probable even thai when Joseph 
intelligent men than the friend- of 
asked of Pilate the privilege of taking the ! 

be restored; that their object in seeking to | OB the 

very first night, as soon as the women and the other f horn it W< 

to trust with a secret, had tone, and it ! r him. 

It is evident that the disciples did not go t.» the tomb on the sabbath 
had been absent on that day, they would not have known it. All t 
of the exit of Jesus from the tomb, was, that very earlj on the 
— but of the length of time he had been gone they knew nothi 

If it be true that the individual, semi b\ the dieciplt 
after his re-appearance, tend- to confirm all I hai i d in relation to bin nan. 

tion. Had he actually risen from the dead, he would undoubtedly have sh 



THE RESURRECTION. 55 

the most open manner, so as to have made the fact of his resurrection notorious. But he 
kept himself timidly concealed from the pub-lie eye. He skulked about like a fugitive, who 
had luckily escaped the clutches of the executioner. He saw none but his friends. Peter 
says (Acts 10 — 41) he did not shew himself "to all people," but (only) to his disciples. 
His first interview even with them was had in the evening and within closed doors, (John 
20 — 19). Eight days afterwards he met them again, and within closed doors, (John 20 — 26). 
Perhaps he saw them a few times more, but he carefully avoided being seen openly. He 
lurked about among his former adherents for forty days, and at the end of that time he was 
among the missing. 

It is now incumbent upon those, who maintain that he was supernaturally restored to life, 
to show, by reasonable evidence, what became of him at the end of these forty days. Those, 
who believe only that animation was naturally restored in him, can easily satisfy themselves 
as to his fate, by supposing that he was detected and privately slain; that he sought a resi- 
dence where he might be safe from a second crucifixion; or that he went off with the inten- 
tion of living concealed for a while, and then returning at a more favorable time to renew 
his attempt to make himself king of the Jews, and that he died before such an opportunity 
presented itself. But neither of these suppositions will answer the purposes of those, who 
maintain that he was supernaturally revived. They must dispose of him in a more dignified 
manner. Now, on what evidence can they do it? Matthew and John give no intimation 
that they ever knew what became of him. Nor do any of the eleven ever speak of having 
witnessed this miraculous " ascent." Yet Mark and Luke, who are our only authority for 
believing that he ascended at all, both say (Mark 16 — 19. Luke 24 — 50 to 51. Acts 1*) that 
he did it in presence of his disciples. Now is it to be believed lor a moment, that if he had 
thus ascended into heaven in the presence of his disciples, no one of them would ever have 
given us his testimony to the fact? or that Matthew and John, who were of the twelve, when 
they undertook to write biographies of him, would have omitted all allusion to such an event 
as this, if it had ever happened? The thing is incredible. It would have been better for 
their case to have omitted the whole of their other accounts of the supposed miracles and 
wonderful works of Jesus, than to have omitted this single one, for without this, the rest, 
under the circumstances, are utterly incredible, and good for nothing - . There is no excuse 
for attempting to support a story of this kind on the mere hearsay declarations of Mark and 
Luke, who could have known nothing of the fact, when the alleged eye-witnesses are silent. 
The imposition is too gross to deserve the toleration of society for a moment. And that class 
of men, who dare get their living by palming off this abominable deception upon the under- 
standings of the simple and confiding, have little more excuse for their conduct than that other 
class of swindlers and cheats, against whom we have laws to protect the community. f The 
disciples perhaps fas shim*: of their observations indicate) supposed that Jesus had gone to 
heaven, and well they might BUppose so, and for these reason.-, viz. that they thought that the 
proper [dace for him, and perhaps they remembered that he had once before told them that he 
going to the Father, and they knew not now where else he could have gone to. (They 
did not dream that he could run away). But they never speak of having seen him ascend. 
Certainly the bare conjectun s of these eleven are not to be taken as evidence of his ascension. 
The believer then is left with a risen Messiah on his hands, whom he has not disposed of, 
and whom he cannot dispose of, by any reasonable evidence, that can be found in the Bible. 

But supposing any one should still Bay that he will nevertheless continue to believe that 
Jesus went to heaven, let me ask him whether he supposes that the body of Jesus went there ? 
that human body, which is supposed to have been prepared solely for him to live in while on 
the earth ? Surely he will not pretend that this flesh and blood, this lump of matter, this cor- 
poral system went to the land of souls. What then did become of it, unless it walked slily off 



one day out of the reach of dange 

Besides, what became of the dress he had on ? Did he wear that into the world of spirits? 
But this is not all. There is, in this story, still another absurdity, gross as any preceding one. 
The testimony of the witnesses is, that he ascended "up" into heaven. Now, which way 
from the earth is up J 

Luke is Baid by Christiana to have written the A< 
t Vetitie not mat they thus get men's money, that 1 would oppose the CI erg) ; although that would 
be a sufficient reason fbr opposing them, if there were not other reasons Btronger. Tin- waste of money, 
immense though it be, 1 consider as among the slightest of the evils attending the existence and support 
of Christianity. It is because the Clergy, by means of their infamous doctrines, appal, delude and en- 
i the imaginations bf the young ; di prive men of the ir mental liberty, of their judgment, reason and 
candor; fill tfieir minds with prejudice, and their imaginations with vulgar and disgusting superstitions ; 
rot truth and reason of tin ir power, and resist totia tnnbua their progress whenever thej conflict with the 
vile delusion and imposture, which it is their intend to advocate ; and because they thus make men 
dupes, fools, Blaves, cowards, bigots and fanatics, that 1 would oppose and expose them and their By stem. 
It is. in short, because Christianity is nothing bul a miserable and disgusting superstition; because its 
pretended evidences are false, many of them' grossly and glaringly false; because the Clergy seem to 
understand all this, and yet have the audacity to impose upon men by pretending the contrary, and to 
degrade and govern them by thus imposing upon them, that I would awaken opposition to the Clercy and 
Christianity. ° 



•i ill deist's reply. 

\\" . when they talk of the probability of such stuff as this ? 

;' tins alleged resurrection from the dead, 'supposes Jesus never to 

n by bis disciples after his crucifixion, but that they were duped by some one 

eJ us. There are some improbabilities attending this solution, yet none 

rill be found to bear any comparison with that of a man's returning to life 

died. 

The testimony tending to prove that he was seen alive, is but the statements of two men, 

/ho do not pretend to have seen him, and of three other men, (Matthew, 

that they did see him. 
the dead to life would be a supernatural event, it is so improbable that it 
irs little less than ridiculous to regard at all any stories told by men, who do not pretend 
ie man, and who only relate what they heard, probably years afterwards. Few 
y will therefore be devoted to the testimony of Mark and Luke. But since Matthew, 
John ami Taut say that they saw him, their testimony will be more particularly examined — 
me fact had been related of any person but Jesus, or in any other book 
than . it would not be regarded as in the slightest degree probable, whether testified 

. two, by ten, or even ten thousand men. If, in the case last supposed, we were not to 
doubt the honesty of the witnesses, we should still disbelieve their testimony, however direct 
and positive it might be — for we should say, and say it too with the most entire confidence, 
that they must in some way or another have been mistaken, even though the circumstances 
had been such as that the witnesses should deem it impossible that they could have been, and 
that we could not tell how they were. We should believe that they had seen an in- 
dividual, who so nearly -resembled the deceased, that they were in an error as to the identity of 
the person, or we should say that some delusion had seized on and deceived them. 

possible amount of human testimony could make us believe for a moment, that Maho- 
met rose from the dead, although the fact were universally believed by his followers. Even 
if it were said that .Mahomet, after his death, was seen alive again and again, daily and hourly 
for years, by great multitudes who had known him intimately before his death, we could not 
be made to believe that the individual seen was he. Even if it were said that this individual 
assumed to be Mahomet; to till the place, and take the station, which he had occupied; that 
he conversed about having been dead, and gave a reason for having suffered death; that he 
had marks about his person that resembled those about the person of Mahomet; still we 
should not believe; we should say that the man was an impostor; that he had disguised him- 
self So as to resemble Mahomet as nearly as he could, and that he was by this art, deceiving 
all who credited his pretensions, however numerous and respectable those persons might be. 
But tin- is supposing a much stronger case than that related by the biographers of Jesus. 
The individual, whom they supposed to be Jesus, did not show himself as such to the multi- 
tude although, if he were really Jesus, and a belief in him as a Saviour were necessary to 
their future happiness, he would seem to have been bound by the strongest principles of moral 
obligation to have thus shown himself, that he might have inevitably convinced those who had 
before been incredulous — and the fact that he did not show himself to the world as the one 
who had been dead, is very strong evidence of itself that he was not the real Jesus. 

This individual was seen by eleven, who had been followers of Jesus, and perhaps also the 
same individual was seen by three or four other persons, although it is very doubtful whether 
the person seen by the eleven*was the one seen by Mary. 

This individual was seen (as John says) by a part of the disciples of Jesus at three different 
times, and unless he were the one whom Mary and the two going to Emmaus saw, we have 
hardly a shadow of evidence that he was seen and recognised as Jesus, at any other times, or 
by any other persons, after the crucifixion. And yet Luke says (Acts 1 — 3) that Jesus was on 
the earth forty days after that event. If he himself were on the earth forty days, where was 
he, and what was he doing during all this time, that he should be seen not at all by the public, 
and but three times by his own disciples ? If he were the genuine Jesus, a tenth part of this 
time was sufficient for him to have shown himself so publicly to the Jews, and proved his iden- 
tity so unequivocally, as that the conversion of the whole Jewish nation would have been the 
probable result. Yet he did not thus exhibit himself, but left about sixty generations of a whole 
nation, as believers must say, eternally to perish, merely because they were not convinced that 
he was the Messiah. Even if he were really the Messiah, and did actually exhibit a disregard 
of men's happiness so inhuman as he is here represented to have done, a man must have an 
exceedingly degraded moral taste, or very obtuse moral perceptions, to be capable of feeling 
any respect for his character. 

But let us look more minutely at the evidence. 

We are told (Mat. 27 — (>G) that the sepulchre was made sure, the stone placed against. the 
door being scaled, or made fast, and a watch set. The inference, which the believer draws from 
these facts, is, that no one could have stolen the body without being detected. But the reader 
will here recollect the evidence, before offered, to prove that, if There were any watch, they 
were asleep, and also to prove that there was no watch. I shall here take it for granted that 
that evidence was satisfactory to prove one or the other of those positions. There was then 
opportunity enough to steal this body ; and if it were possible to steal it, the single fact that 



THE RESURRECTION. 57 

it was absent, is conclusive proof that, if it were dead, it was carried away ; because, as long 
as we can imagine a natural way in which this body could be removed, we are not to suppose 
it to have been supernaturally done. 

Let us now look at the evidence of Jesus having been seen by Mary. Matthew says (28 — 
9 & 10) that as Mary Magdalen and the other Mary were going from the sepulchre, Jesus met 
them, and commanded them, saying, "All hail," /'precisely as a man, who, on seeing these 
women coming from the tomb, should infer that they had been followers of Jesus, and should 
feel disgusted at the thought of their believing that he would rise again,* would have done, 
if he had wished to impose on them on account of their superstition) ; that they then came 
and held him by the feet and worshipped him, and that he then told them to not be afraid, 
but to go and tell his brethren to go into Galilee, and that they should see him there. Such 
is Matthew's account of the interview with Mary. Mark's story is somewhat different. 
He says that the angel, whom he says the women saw in the sepulchre, told them to go and 
tell the disciples that Jesus had gone into Galilee, and that they should see him there. And 
all that he says about Mary's seeing Jesus, is simply this (16 — 9) that early in the morning 
on the first day of the week, " he appeared to her" — but says nothing of the place where he 
appeared to her, or of what he said to her. Luke's account is still different from either. 
He says that Mary, and other women, went to the sepulchre, and saw two angels, but does 
not say a word about Mary's seeing Jesus at all after his death. John's account is still very 
materially different from that of either of the other three. He says (20 — 1 to IS) that Mary- 
went first to the sepulchre, (making no mention of any other women going with her); that 
she saw the stone rolled away from the door; that she then returned and told this to Peter 
and John; that they (Peter and John) then went to the sepulchre, and saw the grave clothes 
&c. and then went away, (not having seen Jesus); but that after they (Peter and John) had 
gone, Mary remained behind at the sepulchre weeping; that she then looked into the sepul- 
chre, and saw two angels, in a different position from that represented by Luke, viz. sitting- 
one at the head and the other at the feet where the body had lain; that as she turned herself 
back from this sight, she saw a man whom she did not know, but whom she supposed to be 
the gardener; that this supposed gardener asked her why she wept, and whom she sought; 
that she answered him in a manner that indicated that she had been a believer in Jesus; that 
this supposed gardener then said to her "Mary;" that at the utterance of this single word 
she believed the man to be Jesus, (although she had seen him before, and had spoken to him, 
and he to her, without her knowing him); that she then addressed him in a manner that 
showed that she thought him to be Jesus; that he then, (probably to impose on her, and see 
how he could keep up and continue the delusion which he saw her superstition and her then, 
excited imagination had led her into) said to her (assuming to be Jesus) " touch me not! for 
I am not yet ascended to my father! but go to my brethren, and say unto them I ascend unto 
my father and your father, to my God and your God." And here ended the interview. 

If John's story stood alone, and uncontradicted, it contains enough to show that there was 
no Jesus there. If there were, why did he not show himself to Peter and John, instead of 
Mary alone? Why did not Mary know him at first? Why did he not suffer her to touch 
him? How did it happen that he had not as yet been to his father? He had told his disci- 
ples, (John 14 — 28), "I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would re- 
joice, because I said I go unto my father." And yet John represents him as telling Mary, 
after his supposed resurrection, that he had not yet been to his father. Where, then, if he 
were Jesus, had he been during that time which he had allotted to go to the Father? 

Mary's mistake in supposing this man to be Jesus, is easily accounted for. She was an 
exceedingly simple and superstitious woman, as is proved by the facts that she supposed 
Jesus had cast out of her seven devils, (Mark 16—9) and that she imagined she saw angels 
at the sepulchre. She would naturally, at such a time and place, be in the greatest trepida- 
tion of mind, and her imagination would be filled with superstitious fancies. When there- 
fore the man addressed her by her own name, and doubtlessly in a tone a little more emphatic 
or authoritative than he had before used, it is not at all strange that she should at the moment 
imagine him to be Jesus, and address him as such. He then, seeing her simplicity and de- 
lusion, took advantage of her state of mind to dupe her farther, and told her not to touch 
him, &.c. Here the interview closed before she had had time to recover her self-possession, 
and discover her mistake. 

But the stories of all are so dissimilar, and in some of the most, if not the only, important 
particulars, so inconsistent with each other, that we cannot determine how much or how 
little of either may be true, or how much of all may be false: but we may safely infer from 
either alone, or from all together, that she really saw no Jesus there. We are laid under 
the stronger necessity of coming to this conclusion by the circumstance that the apostles 
themselves did not, at the time, believe her story, (Mark 16 — 10 & 11— Luke 24 — 10 & 11) 
but considered it an " idle tale." 

The next time that he is said to have been seen, was when two, who had been his follow- 
ers, were going to Emmaus. Luke says (24 — 13 to 31) that Jesus, on the same day that he 

* I here admit, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus did predict that he should rise again, and that 
this fact was known abroad, as Matthew (27 — 63) represents it to have been. 

8 



THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

from the dead, f.ll into the company of these two men, and conversed with them on the 

and yet that during all this time they did not know him. Luke accounts for the fact 

•!i. \ did not know him, bj saying that "their eves were (miraculously) hodden that 

hould not know him.*' Bui to perform a miracle to prevent an individual from being 

would be a Bingular wa] of making it manifest that that individual had risen 

Be that as it may, this man walked with thorn, and they told him that they 

had been believers in Jesus. And furthermore they told him that certain women had, that 

morning, been to the sepulchre, that the body was missing, and that the women said they 

Is, who told them that Jesus was alive. The supposed Jesus must have by 

this iinif cliseo\ ered \\ hat sort of persons he was talking with. He must have seen that they 

strongly inclined to believe that Jesus really was alive, and thus he must have been 

J that they could easily be imposed upon. He therefore attempts it, and in order to 

bring their minds into such astateasto be easily duped by any artifice he might choose to 

j to convince them entirely that Jesus was alive, by attempting to show from 

their Bcriptures thai " Christ ought to have died," (and of course to rise again). Before 

the\ had reached the place where the two were to stop, he had undoubtedly brought them 

to believe thai the story of the women was true, and that Jesus was really alive. They 

were then ready to be caught by his trick, which was this, viz. after they had set down to 

eat, he took bread, " and Messed it, (in the maner of Jesus) and brake, and gave to them." 

The resull was such as might have been expected, viz. " their eyes were opened, and they 

knew him." Hw conduct was then such as might be expected, viz. " he vanished out of 

their sight." 

Mark tells the story more briefly. He merely says (16—12 St 13) "and after that, he 
appeared, in another form, unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 
And they went and told it unto the residue — neither believed they them." And well they 
might not believe them, and well may we not believe them, for if he appeared "in another 
form," how could the witnesses themselves know that it was he? 

Mark and Luke, who were not of the twelve, tell these stories, but Matthew and John, who 
of the twelve, say nothing about the matter — which circumstance is pretty good evidence 
that they always supposed there was some deception or mistake in it. 

ither circumstance, which renders it probable that this individual was deceiving these 
simple men, is, that it is difficult, if not actually impossible, to conceive of any reason, that he 
could have had, if he were Jesus, for not wishing to be known by them at the first. 

Still another circumstance, of the same strong character, is the language, which he employ- 
ed to bring them to believe that Jesus was alive. He even went so far as to call them " fools," 
(language not very well becoming a Saviour), on account of their backwardness to believe the 
strange stories they had heard. If he had commended their good sense in not believing them, 
he would have shown himself a man of more judgment or more honesty. But such language 
as he used, when it comes from a superior, is often, with simple men, who doubt their own ca- 
pacity to judge, the most persuasive of all arguments. 

Although neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke (in his gospel"*) speak of Jesus's being seen but 
once by his immediate disciples after his death, yet John says that he was seen by a. part of 
them at threi different times. Let us see whether it were so. 

I have before said that no number of witnesses, however respectable themselves, and how- 
ever direct and positive their testimony, would be sufficient to convince us that any man but Je- 
sus ever rose from the dead. Although they were to testify to circumstances, which we should 
be unable to account for in any other way than by supposing the man to have risen from the 
dead, still we should believe, we should know, as absolutely as we can know any thing, that 
there was a mistake or a deception somewhere. In these three cases, related by John, of Je- 
sus's being seen by his disciples, there is abundant room for mistakes and deception. 

Of those numerous pretended Messiahs, who were about in the days of Jesus, it was perfect- 
ly natural that some one should seek to avail himself of the notoriety which Jesus had acquir- 
ed, and of the additional notoriety that might be acquired by assuming his name, and pretend- 
ing to have risen from the dead. Such an one, knowing the superstitious character of these 
disciples, would see, that if he could disguise himself so as to resemble in any degree the per- 
son of Jesus, he could pass himself off to his disciples as him. This too would be an easy 
matter for him to accomplish, for they were so superstitious, and so ready and eager to believe 
any thing marvellous in relation to Jesus, that if they were to see one whose looks or dress 
did but remind them of him, they could, by persuasion and the power of their imaginations, 
be brought to believe what they must have so earnestly desired to believe, viz: that°the indi- 
vidual was really Jesus. If such were the motives, that governed the one, who, at three dif- 
ferent interviews, assumed to be Jesus, he then probably found that it would be impossible 
longer to keep up the deception, and never attempted it again. 

There is ;i different motive that might have induced someone to attempt this deception. The 
credulity and ignorance of these simple fishermen must have been well known among the 

' In the Arts (lsl c), (if be were the author of the Acts as he is generally supposed to have been) he 
represents that Jesus was seen many times— but he was not one of the twelve, and what he heardis good 
for n billing a* tr-ptimonv. 



THE RESURRECTION. 59 

more enlightened part of the community. If some one, after having witnessed the delusion 
which had led them on before the death of Jesus, should, from a mere waggish curiosity to 
learn the extent to which they might be still further duped, disguise himself so as to resemble 
Jesus so far as to recal him to their minds when they should see him, and then, taking advan- 
tage ot their flurried imaginations, should stoutly declare himself to be Jesus, the deception, 
with such men, would certainly succeed. 

It appears that the individual, who had passed himself off as Jesus with the two going to 
Emmaus, was the same who afterwards appeared to the disciples, because Mark says (16—14) 
that he upbraided the eleven for not believing those, who had said that they had seen him. If 
then the one, who went to Emmaus, was an impostor, the one, Avhom the eleven saw, was also — 
and probably his success in duping the two induced him to try the same experiment with the 
eleven. 

Very little disguise would be sufficient for his purpose — because the eleven were well pre- 
pared, by the stories of the women, and of the two, to believe that Jesus was alive. The suc- 
cess of the artifice, at the first interview, was aided also by other circumstances. The time 
chosen was the most favorable for the plot that could have been selected, viz : evening, (John 
20 — 19). The place was favorable, for the doors were shut. The state of their minds, in other 
respects than the one above mentioned, was favorable, for they had assembled " through fear of 
the Jews" and their thoughts were undoubtedly engrossed by the idea of his being alive — and 
they were undoubtedly querying with each other whether he were alive ; and probably nearly 
all had come to the conclusion that he actually was. In the midst of this state of things the 
man enters, and says, solemnly, " Peace be unto you," — the best language he could have chosen 
to impress their imaginations. Soon he repeats, " Pe-ace be unto you — as my father hath sent 
me, even so send 1 you." Then he "breathed on them! and said receive ye the Holy Ghost." 
What means such disgusting mummery, unless it were a studied imposition? Breathing on 
them ! He then closes the interview by one of the most arrant pieces of humbug that was ever 
attempted, viz : by pretending to confer on them power to forgive sins!* a pretence which 
probably, at the present day, hardly deceives a single Protestant in all Christendom. 

To proceed with the evidence. John says he showed unto them his hands and his side. 
John would have us believe, from this language, that the disciples plainly saw the scars or 
wounds ; yet he does not say absolutely that they did ; and if they only saw his hands and his 
side, without any scars or wounds, the prevarication would hardly be more palpable than the 
one which John was convicted of on a preceding page. But even the story, that he offered to 
show them his scars, is very improbable for several reasons, — such as, in the first place, that it 
is not likely that it was necessary, for they would generally believe him readily enough without 
seeing them. In the second place, if he were to show them his hands, he would not be likely 
to show them his side — the real Jesus would certainly be able to prove his identity, to men so 
ready to believe as they were, without submitting to so critical an examination. A third rea- 
son is, that it was probably so dark that they could not have seen the scars even if there were 
any — for John says it was in the evening, and that the doors were shut through fear of the 
Jews. If they were so fearful of being discovered by the Jews, they would not be likely to 
have light enough in the room to enable them to detect a scar on a man's hand. 

Eight days after this affair, John says (20 — 26) they were together, probably in the same 
place, for he says they were " within," and also that the doors were shut, as before. The in- 
dividual comes again, and says to them — as before — " Peace be unto you." He then said to 
Thomas, " Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust 
it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing." Then 3 says John, 4i Thomas answered 
and said unto him, My Lord, and My God." Now here is room again for another of John's 
equivocations. He does not say that Thomas actually did examine either his hands or his side- 
he only says that the man proposed that he should do so. Thomas, having been half incredu- 
lous and half believing, would not be likely, after such a proposal had been made to him, to do 
any thing that would imply so much doubt, not only of the reality of the person, but also of the 
truth of the man's declaration, as, after the offer had been made to him in a tone of confidence, 
then to proceed to make the examination in earnest. Probably the man's apparent willingness 
to be examined confirmed Thomas in the belief that he was Jesus without any examination — • 
if so, it would have appeared to him indecent irreverence to make the examination, and he 
would be satisfied without making it, as the others had been. 

But supposing he actually did put. his hand upon the side, and even suppose (what would not 
be very probable) that the side was naked, it is hardly possible that there should have been 
such a scar there as that a person, who expected as a matter of course (as Thomas by this time 
must have done) to find the scar there, would not be very liable to be deceived in just placing 
his finger for a moment on a substance so yielding as flesh. Besides, such a spear as those 
used for piercing the sides of those, who were executed, would undoubtedly be but a small in- 
strument, and would leave but a trifling mark, and not such an one as John speaks of, into 
which a man might " thrust his hand." 

* John 20—23. u Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain 
they are retained, 



f,» THE DEIST'S REPLY. 

Ol r that Thomai did go so far as to look at, or feel of, the *iand of the man, and 

supposing he actually did discover Borne appearance of a Blight wound there ; we must remem- 

riad been eight dayd since this man had hecn seen by the oihers, and if he were one 

M ssiabe, and designed at this time to attach this sect to him, he would natur- 

. that some Dew corroborating circumstance would at this time be necessary to keep 

doception which he had practised once, and might slightly wound his hand so as to give 

; enough of the desired appearance to impose on the credulity of a man like Thomas, who 

no-tenths imposed on before. 

• that 'he man had not hcen seen for eight days is very strong 1 evidence that some 
of this Kmd was practised on Thomas, if it were true that he examined the hand at all — 
I circumstance, which I entirely disbelieve. This whole story of Thomas's examination ofJe- 
BUfl is an exceedingly suspicious one. It is such an one as might be most easily manufactured, 
and . ary to be manufactured, or otherwise supplied, in order to make out 

any thing of a plausible case in favor of a resurrection. 

But even if Thomas did proceed to examine both the hand and the side, and even if he found 
marks there which satisfied him, still, the fact that he made so critical an examination, would 
argue most forcibly that the personal appearance of the individual did not well correspond with 
that of Jesus, andj of ceurse, that the marks were counterfeit. 

There is stdl another objection to the whole testimony of these alleged scars or wounds, and 
that is, that if a divine being were to be restored to life miraculously, it appears a little proba- 
ble that he would be restored unblemished, and bearing no mark of man's violence, instead of 
thus bringing back his scars or wounds with him — otherwise the work of restoration would seem 
to have been but half performed. Supposing his legs had been broken on the cross, as the legs 
of the others were, would he have come back with broken legs? 

John says again that this man was seen by a part of the disciples a third time. This appear- 
ance must have been thirty days or more after the last, if the individual was seen by the disci- 
ples but three times in all, (and we have none but hearsay evidence to show that he was seen 
more than three times) ; because Luke says (Acts 1 — 3) that Jesus was on the earth forty days, 
and the second time that he was seen was only eight days after he was supposed to have risen, 
and they could not have known that he was on the earth forty days, unless they saw him at the 
end of that time. 

This individual, whoever he might be, appeared to them standing onthe shore in the morn- 
ing, after they had been fishing through the night, (John 21 — 3 and 4). John acknowledges 
that when they first saw him on the shore, they did not know that the man was Jesus. It is evi- 
dent also that, even after they had come to him on the shore, they were in doubt as to the iden- 
tity of the man, for John says (21 — 12) that " none of his disciples durst ask him, who art thou ? 
knowing that it was the Lord." Now if they knew that it was Jesus, how happened it that 
they thought of asking him who lie was ? yet the fact that they did not dare to ask him, proves 
that they desired to ask, or thought of asking, him ; and the fact that they thought of asking, 
or desired to ask him, proves that they were in doubt. So that here is another case (only one 
of many as I believe) where John has attempted to make his story stronger than the truth. He 
probably, in years afterward, on recurring to this incident, and dwelling upon it, brought him- 
self to believe that the man seen was Jesus. 

There are some good reasons for believing, that John has colored his whole account of this 
supposed Jesus much beyond the reality. He was under strong temptation to exaggerate. 
His object, as was stated before, in writing his narrative, was to prove that Jesus was not a 
mere man.* It was important to the progress and dignity of the system that he should prove 
this — and it was important also to his own reputation and influence among the early converts, 
because he had undoubtedly always held that doctrine to them. But to establish this fact a 
strong story was necessary. Forty years experience, in the labour of convincing men of the 
truth of such improbable facts as his system rested on, had taught him that a very plausible and 
unhesitating story was absolutely necessary to gain credit, and the same experience had taught 
him how to tell such a story — and furthermore, many of those stories of his, which differ from 
any told by the others, are of such a kind as could be easily manufactured from very slight cir- 
cumstances. He was also a man of a low, contemptible and itching ambition, as is proved by 
the facts that lie wished to have the promise of sitting next to Jesus in heaven, (or in his king- 
dom on earth), (.Mark 10 — 35 to 37), and that he repeatedly pretends, by speaking of himself as 
" that disciple whom Jesus loved," to have been his favorite over the others — a fact, which I am 
not aware that any, but himself, ever discovered. A disposition so low, and so craving of noto- 
riety, as this, is almost always associated with a propensity to practice duplicity and deception — 
and therefore, even if there were no circumstances, out of his narrative, to oppose his state- 
men's, his own character is a sufficient reason why we should not credit a word that he says, 
which looks improbable. 

The testimony of Paul is (1 Cor. 15—5 to 8) that Jesus was once seen by five hundred at 
once, and that lastly he was seen by himself. I contend that it is not at all probable that even 
the individual, who pretended to be Jesus, ever made that pretension in the presence of five 

s See Lempriere'a Blog. Diet. 



THE RESURRECTION. 61 

hundred, and for these reasons among others, viz: first, that we have only Paul's word for it, 
and as he has, as the reader will recollect, been already convicted of direct falsehood in one 
instance,* of probable falsehood in another, and in another of deliberate deception, which is 
equally falsehood, though accomplished by actions instead of words, his word is good for 
nothing as evidence of any thing improbable — and, second, that, of the four, who pretend to 
give the most minute accounts, which have ever been given, of the life, death, supposed re- 
surrection, &c. of Jesus, not one says a word of his having ever been seen by the five hun- 
dred, or by any except his eleven disciples and four or five other individuals. John, in par- 
ticular, has been very minute in his account of the several times when the man was seen by 
a few persons only, and of the circumstances attending each of those exhibitions, yet he has 
said not a word of his being seen by the five hundred, although he would most certainly have 
done so (supposing him to have had common sense) if he had known of any such occur- 
rence — and he, from his situation, must have known of it, if it had happened. Perhaps Paul 
heard that he was seen by that number, and perhaps he did not — it would however be nothing 
improbable that he should hear so, even if there were not the slightest truth in the statement. 

But supposing that the individual were seen by five hundred persons — we should not then 
know whether they believed him to be the real Jesus or not. Even Paul does not go so far 
as to say that they did — and, in the absence of further proof, the probability is altogether that 
they did not. John says (11 — 45, 46) that many Jews saw Lazarus raised from the dead, but 
also virtually says that a part of them believed that Jesus only attempted to practice a cheat 
upon them. So also some of the Pharisees saw the pretended miracle of restoring (he with- 
ered hand, but, instead of believing it a miracle, evidently believed it a hoax. This case of 
the five hundred is very likely to have been another of those, where men saw, but did not 
believe, and therefore the fact that the individual was seen by five hundred, if such were the 
fact, would be worth nothing to prove that that individual was Jesus, unless it be shown also 
that the five hundred recognised him as such. 

But Paul says also that he himself once saw him. Now since all the evidence heretofore 
offered of Paul's dishonesty, and of his readiness to assert positively any thing that was 
necessary for his cause, if it had the slightest foundation in hearsay, might go for nothing, in 
some men's minds, against the positive declaration of so great an apostle as he, I esteem it 
fortunate that he has in this instance, by contradicting his own testimony, saved me the neces- 
sity of laboring to do it in any other way than by referring to his own acts. I say therefore, 
that he has proved, by his own conduct, that if (what is not very probable) he ever saw the in- 
dividual who pretended to be Jesus, he did not at the time believe him to be him, because, if 
he had, he would of course, have been converted at once — whereas he was not converted 
until long afterwards, nor until he had been accessary to the murder of Stephen, on account 
of his preaching in the name of this same Jesus. 

Perhaps Paul might have seen an individual, who pretended to be Jesus, and, though he 
did, not at the time, believe him to be the real one, he might nevertheless, after his conversion, 
on recurring to the circumstance, have brought himself to a different belief, and then in his 
reckless manner declare positively that, which he believed, but which was nevertheless un- 
true. This appears to me the most charitable supposition that the case will admit. 

Another circumstance, in addition to those heretofore mentioned, against the fact that 
Jesus ever rose from the dead, is, that he is not said, in either of the four gospels, to have 
shown himself, even to his most intimate friends and followers but three times for forty days. 
Where was he during all this time? Where is it possible that the real Jesus could have 
kept himself so long concealed? 

Another circumstance, and one of the strongest character, against the same fact, is, that 
he did not show himself to the world. Could any man be so destitute of common sense, as 
to suppose that reasonable men would believe that a corpse came to life, on the bare assertion 
of those ignorant fishermen, who had all along been viewed, by the most enlightened part of 
the community, as deluded fanatics? — -and that too, when no good reason could be imagined 
why, if the man were really alive, he should not exhibit himself personally? 

Every motive of duty, and every argument of expediency would seem to have conspired 
to induce this man to show himself to the world, if he were alive — yet he did not. Is it 
possible for the ingenuity of man to conceive of a reason why he should remain on the earth 
forty days, unless it were for the express purpose of exhibiting himself openly, and thus 
furnishing as much testimony as possible, for the benefit of succeeding generations, of the 
reality of his resurrection? 

But the different accounts given by these narrators are sufficient to show that there were 
various and disagreeing stories afloat even among those who had been his most immediate 
and confidential followers, as well respecting his resurrection and ascension, as about his acts 
before his death. For example, Luke, in his chapter on the resurrection, (the 24th), says 
nothing of Jesus having but one interview with his disciples, and he says (24 — 50 & 51) that 
(manifestly at the close of this first interview) " he led them out as far as to Bethany, and 
he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he 
was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." This is a manifest contradiction of his 

* $ee Chapter 1st, Oft the Spread of Christianity. 



62 THE deist's reply. 

declaration, in the first chapter of Acts, that Jesus was on the earth forty days. Mark also, 
immediately after detailing the particulars of the first and only interview, of which he speaks 
as having been had by Jesus with his disciples, says (16 — 19) "so then, after the Lord had 
spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and set on the right hand of God." 
These representations contradict the story of John, who says that he was seen once eight 
days after the first interview, and again after that time. Again — Matthew does not speak of 
his being seen by his disciples but once after his death — John says he was seen three times. 
Further-more Mathew and John say not a word about his going up into heaven, although 
they most assuredly would have done so, if they had seen him, and Mark and Luke repre- 
sent them to have seen him. Such differences of testimony show that there were unfounded 
reports in circulation about him, and believed among those who ought to have known the 
truth and the whole truth; that these reports differed materially from each other; that there- 
fore no confidence is to be placed in any of them, and that we, of course, are without evi- 
dence that can be relied on. 

There is another circumstance, which, of itself alone, ought to decide this question, in 
opposition to all the evidence together that can be found on the other side. It is this, that at 
the only interview, which Matthew (28 — 16 & 17) represents this supposed Jesus to have had 
with the eleven, who had been his immediate and confidential followers, a part of those very 
eleven doubted whether the individual ivere he. If any one of these eleven, after having once 
been an implicit believer in Jesus, after having been reminded of the intimations that Jesus 
had given that he should die and rise again, after knowing that the body was missing from 
the sepulchre, after having heard the stories of the women who had been to the sepulchre, 
and of the two going to Emmaus, after having gone "into a mountain where Jesus had ap- 
pointed" with the expectation of meeting him, would then, on seeing the individual, doubt 
while the rest believed, it is madness, it is the height of superstitious folly, for us to believe, 
on such testimon}', that an individual rose from the dead. 

I will mention another circumstance bearing upon this point — one very insignificant and 
unimportant standing alone, but which, considered in relation to the resurrection of Jesus, 
must, it appears to me, if men have a spark of reason in judging of this question, put an ex- 
tinguisher upon the last pretence that he ever rose from the dead. 

John says (20 — 1 to 7) that he himself ("the disciple whom Jesus loved" is the language 
used) was the first one of the disciples, and undoubtedly the first person, who arrived at the 
sepulchre after Mary had told them that the stone was rolled away from the door — and he 
says that "the napkin, which was about his head, was not lying with the linen clothes, but 
was wrapped together in a place by itself." Did Jesus, when rising from the dead, leave a part 
of his grave clothes in one place, and a part in another. Did he stop to wrap up and lay aside 
this napkin ? or was it done by some one, who carried, or assisted in carrying away the body ? 
Which is the most probable ? If a chimney sweep were to rise from the dead, he would no 
more think of wrapping up and laying aside the napkin that had been about his head, than he 
would of waiting in the tomb for his breakfast. But if the Son of God, or a Saviour of a 
world, or any such being, when rising from the dead to "bring life and immortality to light," 
should do an act of this kind, such an incident would present the most remarkable illustration, 
that the world ever furnished, of the truth of the adage, that "there is but a step between 
the sublime and the ridiculous." 

Finally, the fact that no one of the eleven ever knew what became of this individual, whom 
they supposed to be Jesus, is invincible evidence that he did not rise from the dead. 'Tis not 
a question to be argued, whether a Son of God, or a man who had risen from the dead, would 
have served his friends and followers the trick, which this man did the disciples, of going off 
and leaving them forever, without letting them know where he had gone. 



3477-134 
55 



— — - 



1_ 









1 






) \0 



.jd* 



Co 



■^^ 



WK^m 



r '> 






**o« 






s s „ 






/°- 










^ A** * 




































° " ° * <** 



^ 





















^^?r 























LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
II II II Mil III Illll|l ,llll,l,n " 1 '' 




I 11 11 111 II HI) ! 1 I II I II II 

013 773 998 7 



_ 



